[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1272-H1282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MTBE, A PROBLEM FOR THE WHOLE NATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Ganske) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 60 Minutes broadcast into the
homes of millions of Americans an important story about water quality.
A chemical additive is used to improve a car's performance and clean
the air. It has seeps into groundwater supplies throughout the Nation.
It makes water stink. It causes water to smell and taste like
turpentine, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency thinks it may
cause cancer.
This chemical is methyl tert-butyl ether, MTBE.
Mr. Speaker, here is a sample of MTBE in this vial. If I smell this,
oo-wee, this stuff smells bad. I will say something else. It takes only
one teaspoon of this stuff to make an Olympic-sized swimming pool smell
and taste like this sample, like turpentine.
This little vial here contains several teaspoons of MTBE. 60 Minutes
reported that MTBE-contaminated water is being found all across the
country, in places like Santa Monica, Albuquerque, Denver, Dallas,
among other places.
Water wells in Long Island and New Jersey are contaminated with this
stuff. One could say, okay, I can see how it got into the water there.
A lot of MTBE is used in those markets.
Well, I want to say something. It is not only a problem in those
high-use areas. Last month, Iowa's Department of Natural Resources
issued a report that showed that 32 percent of groundwater samples had
MTBE levels of at least 15 micrograms per liter.
What is worse is that 29 percent of the groundwater samples had MTBE
concentrations above the level at which EPA issues a drinking water
advisory. Think about this. There is no MTBE sold or used in Iowa
today. Yet 29 percent of groundwater samples in Iowa qualify for a
Federal drinking water advisory due to contamination of this product.
So how can that be? Well, probably some of it is residual from years
before when an MTBE might have been used in my State.
{time} 2245
But much of MTBE comes from cars just driving through Iowa or maybe
from two cylinder engines spewing MTBE blended gasoline.
These few teaspoons of MTBE will contaminate several Olympic-sized
swimming pools. Let us assume that this vial contains 2 ounces of MTBE.
It probably contains less. But for the sake of argument, let us say it
is 2 ounces. To comply with the oxygenate requirement of the Clean Air
Act, MTBE must be added at a volume of 11 percent.
In a large sport utility vehicle with a gasoline tank capacity of 25
gallons, this means that approximately 128 of these vials are being
carried around in sport utility vehicle gas tanks. If that sport
utility vehicle gas tank were to empty into a lake, that amount of MTBE
would contaminate about 375 Olympic-sized pools.
To further demonstrate the potency of this chemical, those 128 vials
of MTBE would render 71.5 million gallons of water undrinkable. And
MTBE moves through water very quickly. It is incredibly difficult and
expensive to remove.
Mr. Speaker, we must address this issue now. What is the problem? Why
do we not just ban MTBE? Well, this is where the issue of clean air
arises. When I mentioned that MTBE makes fuel burn cleaner, this is
because it adds oxygen to the gasoline.
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 established what is called the
Reformulated Gasoline Program to address poor air quality in the
Nation's most polluted cities. To achieve cleaner air, Congress
required refiners in reformulated gasoline areas to blend 2 percent by
weight of an oxygenate into their gasoline.
Now, this practice has produced significant air quality improvements
throughout the Nation by dramatically reducing harmful automobile
emissions; therefore, we simply cannot remove MTBE without replacing it
with another oxygenate.
Some have recommended eliminating the oxygen requirement altogether,
arguing that will solve the MTBE problem, that would trade air quality
for water quality, and that is not an acceptable solution, nor is it
necessary.
Nonetheless, on Monday, the administration released a set of
legislative principles regarding the problems associated with MTBE.
They recommended that Congress do the following: First, phase out or
eliminate MTBE. I think that is a good idea. I am glad the
administration has finally decided to take an official position on this
issue.
Their second point, ensure air quality gains are not diminished, and
I say right on. The reformulated gasoline program of the Clean Air Act
has produced terrific reductions in automobile emissions. I am glad
that the administration decided to take an official position on
environmental positions.
Third, the administration said replace the 2 percent by weight oxygen
requirement with a 1.2 percent by volume renewable fuels standard. Now,
this is where I have some concerns.
The administration identified MTBE as the problem and also committed
to ensuring air quality, but then it abandons the program which has
produced air quality benefits for millions of Americans, the oxygen
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
I want to read to you a quote from testimony submitted to the
Committee on Commerce on May 6 by Bob Perciasepe, assistant
administrator of air and radiation at the EPA who said, quote, ozone
has been linked to a number of health effect concerns, ozone. Repeated
exposures to ozone can make people more susceptible to respiratory
infection, result in lung inflammation and aggravate preexisting
respiratory diseases, such as asthma. Other health effects attributed
to ozone exposures include significant decreases in lung function and
increased respiratory symptoms, such as pain, chest pain and coughing.
Mr. Perciasepe continues, quote, reformulated gasoline is a cost
effective way to reduce ozone precursors, such
[[Page H1273]]
as volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides when compared to other
air quality measures.
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 required that reformulated
gasoline contain 2 percent minimum oxygen content by weight. The first
phase of the reformulated gasoline program from 1995 through 1999
requires average reductions of ozone forming volatile organic compounds
and toxics of 17 percent each and of nitrous oxides by 1.5 percent.
His testimony continues, quote, in the year 2000, the second phase of
the reformulated gasoline program will achieve even greater average
benefits, a 27 percent reduction in volatile organic compounds, 22
percent reduction in toxics, and a 7 percent reduction in oxides of
nitrogen emissions that also contribute to the formation of urban smog.
This is equivalent to taking more than 16 million vehicles off the
road.
Mr. Perciasepe finishes by saying ``reformulated gasoline provides
these reductions at a cost of less than 5 cents per gallon.'' The
reductions, Mr. Perciasepe outlined, were required in the Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990; however, he continued to discuss the real world
benefits of the reformulated gasoline program.
He said ``since 1995, reformulated gasoline on average has exceeded
expectations for volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxides and toxic
reductions. Most notably, overall, toxic reductions are about twice
that required, with about a 30 percent reduction versus a 17 percent
requirement. It is estimated that about two-thirds of the additional
air toxic reduction is a result of the use of oxygenates.''
That is a significant reduction in emissions beyond what is required.
In addition, when developing EPA's complex model for evaluating
emissions, the Auto Oil Research Program found that oxygenates in
gasoline reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide by 15 to 20
percent.
Why on earth, I ask you, would we want to abandon such a successful
program? Why has the administration turned its back on sound scientific
evidence that its own EPA administrators present to Congress? Well, I
will tell you why. It is because the product of this vial, this stuff
contaminates water.
Despite the administration's call for Congress to protect air quality
advances in advocating an elimination of the oxygen standard, the
administration is saying we must choose between clean air and clean
water.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have to choose between clean air and clean
water. We do not have to abandon the successful reformulated gasoline
program because MTBE contaminates the water, just replace the MTBE with
another oxygenate, a safe one, ethanol. Some of my colleagues and,
evidently, the administration believe that MTBE and oxygen are
synonymous.
Even 60 Minutes said ``how did MTBE end up in gasoline? Well, 10
years ago Congress told the oil companies to put it there, either MTBE
or some other oxygenate that would make the gasoline burn cleaner.''
I want my colleagues in Congress, members of the administration and
the media to understand a very important point, nowhere in the EPA
regulations or in the Clean Air Act does it say that refineries must
blend MTBE in their gasoline to comply with the requirements of
the reformulated gasoline program.
It just so happens that refiners chose MTBE in large quantities to
ensure compliance. Now, why did they do this? Well, because this
product, MTBE, is an oil product. The refiners can make MTBE right in
their existing facilities or they can purchase it from oil suppliers.
The availability of this stuff compelled many to turn to it
exclusively.
Now, I understand the economic motivation, but neither Congress, nor
EPA required them to use MTBE. Refiners made that decision on their
own, and it turns out it was a very bad decision.
Now, if you want to solve the MTBE problem, ban MTBE. The
administration is on the right track in that regard. But when you
remove MTBE and lift the oxygen requirement, you introduce a whole new
set of environmental problems.
We have to fix real problems, like MTBE water contamination, we
should not abandon real solutions, like oxygenated fuels.
Last month Dr. Michael Graboski, director of the Colorado Institute
of Fuels and Higher Altitude Engineer Research, testified before the
Committee on Commerce about the characteristics of oxygenated fuels. He
told us that oxygenates in gasoline replace aromatics to increase the
fuel's octane. That is a good trade-off, because aromatic compounds are
highly toxic, and some, like benzene, are known human carcinogens. They
cause cancer.
Dr. Graboski told us that if the oxygenate requirement is lifted,
refiners will replace oxygenates with aromatics resulting in more
potent toxic emissions. The level of potency measures the degree or
strength to which certain compounds pose a risk to human health.
Dr. Graboski said ``the toxic potency of aromatics and their
combustion by-products are, in many cases, orders of magnitude greater
than the potency of oxygenates or their combustion by-products.'' To
explain this he said ``all toxics are not created equal, but the mass
standard of the Clean Air Act treats them as equal.
Let me be clear, the oxygen requirement in reformulated gasoline has
a real and substantial benefit because clean burning oxygenates are
substitutes for highly toxic aromatics.''
Well, to test Dr. Graboski's assertion that aromatics would be used
to replace oxygen if MTBE were banned, I asked Mr. Bob Campbell, CEO of
Sunoco, I asked Mr. Campbell if the oxygen requirement was waived and
MTBE was phased out, what would you use in your gasoline to ensure
emissions reductions do not rise? He responded, ``I would expect that
the first hydrocarbon that would go in would be potentially some
toluene.''
Mr. Speaker, toluene is one of those toxic aromatics that Dr.
Graboski warned about. In summary, if we remove oxygenates from
gasoline, refiners will replace them with aromatics. The emissions from
many of these aromatics are cancer-causing. Furthermore, the toxics
that are emitted from aromatics are more dangerous to human health than
the toxics emitted from oxygenated fuels. So we should not regress to a
market of gasolines with high aromatic content.
What does this all mean? It means if you want to solve the problem of
water contaminated with MTBE, ban MTBE. If you want to maintain clean
air, use oxygenated fuels. Fortunately, these are not mutually
exclusive goals. We do not have to choose between clean air and clean
water. The administration's legislative proposal makes a false choice.
It does not solve the problem, but it potentially creates new problems.
{time} 2300
So I have introduced legislation, along with the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) that solves this problem and, unlike the
administration's proposal, does not create new ones. My bill, H.R.
4011, the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000, addresses the
problems of MTBE in gasoline and in water, preserves the air quality
benefits of the Clean Air Act, and promotes renewable ethanol.
Specifically, my bill will first, phase out MTBE in 3 years and urge
refiners to replace it with ethanol. Ethanol is a much more
environmentally friendly oxygenate than MTBE. Based on EPA's 1998
complex model comparing an 11 percent volume blend of MTBE with a 10
percent volume blend of ethanol, as used in the oxy-fuels program, we
find that both products produce equivalent emissions reduction of
aromatics, olefiants, volatile organic compounds and nitrous oxides.
The toxic emissions of ethanol-blended gasoline are less potent than
those emitted from MTBE-blended fuels. Using 1.00 as the potency for
toxic emissions from nonoxygenated fuels, i.e. regular gasoline without
any oxygenated compounds, the potency of MTBE computes to 0.94, while
the potency of ethanol is 0.875. Ethanol is less toxic than MTBE in
emissions.
Furthermore, when MTBE is spilled into water, it causes considerably
more trouble. As I mentioned before, this vial, the small vial with an
ounce or so can contaminate several Olympic-sized swimming pools. On
another scale, one could take 1 gallon of this chemical,
[[Page H1274]]
just 1 gallon of MTBE and it will contaminate 26 million gallons of
water. The high solubility of this compound, MTBE in ground water,
causes its high mobility. It is also resistant to bio breakdown. This
allows it to spread very quickly and it allows it to stay in the water
for a long, long time.
On the other hand, ethanol does not have a negative effect on water
quality. Its movement and persistence in ground water is controlled
primarily through biodegradation and it rapidly breaks down in
virtually any environment. Ethanol is a naturally occurring product; it
is produced during the fermentation of organic matter; it has been
found to occur naturally in lake sediments, the tissue of living and
decaying plants, in sewage sludge and many other environments. Also,
plants are known to metabolize ethanol and incorporate the carbon from
ethanol into plant tissues. As a bio-based, naturally occurring
product, ethanol represents an environmentally friendly alternative to
this stuff, MTBE.
As we say in Iowa, Mr. Speaker, with ethanol, we can drink the best
and we can drive the rest.
In order to replace MTBE in the Nation's fuel supply, the ethanol
industry must produce about 3.1 billion gallons each year. That is the
estimate. Last year, the industry estimated its production capacity at
1.8 billion gallons, but since then, several new plants have come on
board, increasing capacity by several hundred thousand gallons and
pushing the new capacity to above 2 billion gallons per year. It will
not be difficult for many of the existing ethanol plants to increase
their production. Ethanol processing units are modular and they can be
expanded at relatively low cost.
With this ability to increase production, the ethanol industry would
be able to satisfy the demands of the reformulated gasoline program by
the time the bad stuff is phased out. Adequate transition time is
necessary.
Besides replacing MTBE with ethanol, my bill would also address
existing water contamination, as I mentioned earlier. Areas of this
country are struggling to find clean water. Santa Monica must import
all of its water because its own groundwater is contaminated. South
Lake Tahoe is in the same dire straits. Long Island is surrounded by
contaminated water. We cannot address the MTBE problem by only removing
MTBE from gasoline. The MTBE contamination I mentioned in Iowa is
relatively minimal compared to these other communities, but my own
constituents are concerned also. My bill would direct the Federal
Government to own up to its share of its responsibility and do what it
can to help these communities figure out how to clean up the existing
contamination.
Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of a memorandum from the U.S. EPA from
1987. At this time, EPA reported that ``Known cases of drinking water
contamination have been reported in 4 States. These cases affect
individual families as well as towns of up to 20,000 people. It is
possible that this problem could rapidly mushroom due to leaking
underground storage tanks at service stations. The tendency of MTBE to
separate from the gasoline mixture into groundwater could lead to
widespread drinking water contamination.''
Mr. Speaker, that is in this EPA memo from 1987. I submit this
document for the Record.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Memorandum
Subject: Division Director Briefing for Methyl tert-Butyl
Ether (MTBE)
From: Beth Anderson, Project Manager, Test Rules Development
Branch (TS-778)
To: Addressees
Attached are the briefing materials for the course setting
meeting on MTBE. The meeting is scheduled for Monday, April
13, 1987 in Room 103 of NE Mall at 11 am to noon. Please
bring the attached information with you at that time.
Attachment.
methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4) Course-Setting Recommendations
(1) ITC recommendations: (Recommended with intent-to-
designate November 1, 1986)
A. Health Effects:
(1) Chronic inhalation toxicity including neurotoxic,
hematologic, and oncogenetic effects.
B. Chemical Fate:
(1) Monitoring studies to determine typical concentrations
of MTBE in the breathing zone of workers and consumers at
sites where MTBE-containing gasoline is being transferred,
including gasoline terminals and service stations.
Rationale: The basis for these concerns was: the dramatic
increase in T-MTBE production and use in the past few years.
As lead is phased out, MTBE has filled the role of octane
enhancer which is added to many gasoline blends. Workers and
consumers are exposed to vapor emissions via skin contact and
inhalation when transferring MTBE or MTBE-containing
gasoline.
(2) TRDB Recommendations
A. Finding 4(a)(1)(B)
There was a production capacity of approximately 4 billion
pounds for MTBE in 1986. At least two major companies are
building new plants to produce MTBE. NIOSH estimates worker
exposure at 2,571 workers, but it is unclear during what
processes these workers are exposed. There are 189,200
``private'' service stations and approximately 300,000
service station attendants, so exposure to MTBE vapor is
greater than the NIOSH estimate.
Concern about MTBE in drinking water surfaced after the ITC
report was published. Known cases of drinking water
contamination have been reported in 4 states. These cases
affect individual families as well as towns of up to 20,000
people. It is possible that this problem could rapidly
mushroom due to leaking underground storage tanks at service
stations. The tendency for MTBE to separate from the gasoline
mixture into ground water could lead to wide spread drinking
water contamination.
(3) Background information
A. Chemical Description
Methyl tert-butyl ether (or 2-methoxy-2-methyl propane) is
a clear liquid with a vapor pressure of 245 mm Hg. The water
solubility of MTBE has been estimated at 40,000 to 51,260 mg/
L. The high value of the Henry's law constant, 5.8
10-4, indicates that MTBE will volatilize from
water. The estimated halflife of MTBE is 2.5 hours in a
stream and 137 days in a 50 m deep lake. The halflife of
MTBE in the air is estimated between 3 to 6 days based on
the reaction of MTBE with hydroxyl radicals in polluted
and normal atmospheres respectively.
B. Manufacturing Process and Use
MTBE is made from isobutylene and methanol in the presence
of an acidic ion-exchange resin catalyst in the liquid phase
at temperatures between 30-100 deg.C and 7-14 atm. MTBE can
be manufactured in either a 1 or 2 stage reactor. Chemical
Marketing Reporting estimated that MTBE production will grow
19% per year between 1985 and 1990. MTBE is used almost
exclusively as an octane enhancer in unleaded gasoline.
Typical MTBE content ranges from 2-8% by volume, although use
of up to 11% by volume has been approved by EPA.
Minute quantities of MTBE have been used in an experimental
procedure to dissolve gallstones using injection of MTBE
through a catheter. MTBE is also used as a solvent in some
liquid chromatography procedures.
Issues
(1) Mode of exposure for health effects testing.
ECAD recommends that the potential hazards due to dermal,
oral and inhalation exposure be evaluated. Two 90-day
subchronic tests, one by oral route, one by inhalation should
be conducted. A pharmacokinetics study relating dermal, oral,
and inhalation exposure should also be done. EPA will use the
results of this testing to determine the route of exposure
for the bioassay and remaining tests.
(2) ITC request for monitoring study to determine MTBE
vapor concentrations at sites of MTBE-containing gasoline
transfer.
ECAD does not recommend a monitoring study for MTBE vapor.
ECAD believes that studies of gasoline vapor release can be
combined with information on MTBE vapor concentration above
MTBE-containing gasoline to estimate consumer exposure to
MTBE vapor. Contacts with regional offices have been made to
determine if there is regional interest in monitoring
information.
(3) ECAD recommends adherance to the previous OTS policy of
requiring the end points obtained in a two generation
reproduction and fertility study. A single generation
reproduction/fertility study by inhalation was submitted
under TSCA 8(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8(d) Submissions
-----------------------
Tests Maxi-B Full-B Not
Adequate adequate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub chronic................. ........ X .......... X
Oncogenicity................ X \1\ X .......... ..........
Developmental Toxicity...... X X ? ..........
Reproduction and fertility.. X X .......... X
Gene Mutation............... X X ? ..........
Chromosomal Aberrations..... X X .......... ..........
Neurotoxicity............... X X .......... ..........
Pharmacokinetics............ X ........ .......... X
Dermal Sensitization........ X X .......... ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trigger.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, because the EPA knew the potential for
widespread MTBE water contamination back in 1987, I think it shares
some responsibility in helping States remedy contaminated water
supplies. Therefore, my bill raises the importance of MTBE within the
Safe Drinking Water Act and directs EPA to provide technical assistance
to States for the removal of MTBE from water. It is essential that
these communities receive some support in their efforts to reclaim
their drinking water supplies.
[[Page H1275]]
My bill would also address concerns about the volatility of ethanol
during warm weather months by allowing oxygen-averaging. Some opponents
of ethanol have claimed that its higher volatility during warm months
makes it inappropriate for use in some markets. The Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990 required that refiners blend 2 percent oxygen by
weight into all gasoline sold in the reformulated gasoline program.
However, when enacting the law, the EPA inserted into the regulations a
minimum per-gallon oxygen content requirement. Refiners have said this
per-gallon requirement is too restrictive.
My bill, H.R. 4011, strikes that regulation in order to allow
refiners flexibility in complying with the Clean Air Act. By providing
refiners with that flexibility, they can decide how best to blend
oxygen into their gasoline. They would be able to increase the gasoline
content in high octane fuels and reduce it in lower octane fuels, as
best fits their business plan. They would also be able to increase
oxygen content during winter months and reduce it during summer months.
As long as they averaged 2 percent content-by-weight through the year,
they would be in compliance. This would help them address the
volatility of ethanol during warm weather and maximize the blending
formulations of their gasoline. However, when providing that
flexibility, we must not allow emissions levels to increase. Therefore,
my bill includes stringent anti-backsliding environmental protections.
Bob Perciasepe of the EPA testified that oxygenated fuels of the
reformulated gasoline program have greatly exceeded the expectations
for emissions reductions. Therefore, when we consider any legislation
that amends this portion of the Clean Air Act, it is essential that we
take these real-world achievements into consideration and ensure that
emissions do not exceed those levels. The Clean Air and Water
Preservation Act of 2000 raises the bar of the Clean Air Act emissions
requirements to real-world, more environmentally sound levels being
experienced in the reformulated gasoline program today.
{time} 2310
At no time in reformulated gasoline areas will the emissions levels
be allowed to exceed those currently achievable by fully oxygenated
fuels. Therefore, while the bill gives refiners a flexibility to market
a variety of fuel blends, it ensures that the air quality in the
reformulated gasoline areas is not negatively impacted. That is sound
environmental legislation.
Yet, controlling emissions is not sufficient. As I mentioned earlier,
if we reduce the use of oxygenates in gasoline, refiners may add more
aromatics. That is not acceptable. Therefore, H.R. 4011 prohibits
refiners from increasing the aromatic content of gasoline above current
levels.
Finally, H.R. 4011 directs the EPA and the Department of Energy to
work on developing alternative oxygenates. Ethanol is a ready, viable
alternative. But we can seek many different sources of oxygen.
I believe H.R. 4011 effectively solves the MTBE problem in both
gasoline and water. It protects the environment. It promotes the
expanded use of the renewable fuel ethanol. We do not have to choose
between clean air and clean water. With ethanol, we can have both.
I think it is very important that we promote renewable fuels. By
replacing MTBE with ethanol, as my bill does, we will greatly increase
the use of renewable fuels in this country. Under this bill, the use of
renewable ethanol would increase from 1.5 billion gallons last year to
more than 3.1 billion gallons in the year 2004. That increased usage
would be spread throughout the Nation benefiting air and water quality
and reducing the use of fossil fuels.
The administration's proposal does not promote an expanded use of
renewable fuels. It holds its use at the status quo. For example, if
the administration's 1.2 percent average renewable content provision
would be enacted into law, it would not increase the use of renewable
fuels in America. Rather, it would set a floor for the use of renewable
fuels below which the refining industry could not drop. Well, that
floor is equivalent to the current level of renewable fuel used
throughout the Nation. That is the status quo.
The administration's proposed 1.2 percent would be the average volume
content of all gasoline sold throughout America, not just in
reformulated gasoline areas. So the likely outcome would be a
concentration in the use of ethanol and biodiesel in the Midwest with
no discernible increase in the use of renewable fuels in other parts of
the country. That would not greatly advance our energy security, nor
expand the potential for a renewable market.
If the administration is truly sincere about promoting the use of
renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, it should simply encourage
Congress and refiners to replace MTBE with ethanol. That would more
than double the use of renewable fuels throughout the Nation rather
than stagnating their use at our current levels. It would reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels.
Those concerned with the human impacts on climate change and
emissions of greenhouse gases should pay close attention to this. While
the use of ethanol and gasoline has not been shown to significantly
reduce emissions in greenhouse gases from automobiles, it does
significantly replace the use of fossil fuel components in gasoline.
That helps reduce the fossil fuel contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions.
My bill would greatly enhance the market potential for renewable
fuels. Expanding the role of ethanol is a vital component of renewable
energy. This bill is the best way to accomplish this.
In addition to the environmental benefits of renewable fuels like
ethanol, the Department of Agriculture has clearly demonstrated a
positive impact on ethanol on America's agricultural community.
A report by the USDA details the benefits America's farmers will
experience if we replace MTBE with ethanol. It would increase demand
for corn by more than 500 million bushels per year. It would increase
the average price of corn by 14 cents per bushel each year through the
year 2010. It would create 13,000 new jobs by the year 2010. It would
increase the average total farm cash receipts by an average of $1
billion each year.
It would significantly reduce the need for emergency agricultural
assistance payments, something that my colleagues spoke about tonight
when they were talking about the budget, or at least they should have.
It would increase U.S. agricultural net export value by more than $200
million each year.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the USDA report for the Record, as follows:
Economic Analysis of Replacing MTBE With Ethanol in the United States
This paper analyzes the effects of replacing MTBE with
ethanol. The analysis assumes that the current Federal oxygen
content requirement for reformulated gasoline (RFG) is
continued. The following issues are examined: The effects on
farm prices and net farm income; the effects on U.S. trade;
the effects on employment in the United States; the effects
on Department of Agriculture (USDA) farm program spending
from increased demand for corn attributable to greater
ethanol production; and the logistical issues associated with
supplying substantial quantities of ethanol to new markets,
including an assessment of the capacity for transporting and
storing ethanol to meet the demands of these markets.
assumptions and analytical procedures
Although California has decided to phase-out MTBE by 2002,
most other states have not taken any actions regarding the
use of MTBE. This analysis assumes all MTBE in the United
States is phased-out and replaced with ethanol. In order to
allow for production capacity and other infrastructure
adjustments, the phase-out is assumed to begin in 2000 and
end in 2004 when all oxygen demand for the RFG and carbon
monoxide (CO) markets is met with ethanol. In addition, the
analysis assumes Congress maintains the oxygen standards
adopted by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; the current
gasoline oxygen requirement in California for Federal RFG is
maintained; all new ethanol capacity brought on comes from
large dry mills; 90 percent of U.S. ethanol is produced from
corn, with the remaining 10 percent produced from sorghum,
barley, wheat, and waste products. The rate at which ethanol
replaces MTBE is assumed to start out gradually and
accelerate over time as the ethanol industry expands capacity
to meet the increase in demand.
An economic model of the U.S. agricultural sector was used
to estimate the effects of replacing MTBE with ethanol on the
U.S. agricultural economy over the period 2000-2010. The
econometric model, the Economic Research Service's Food and
Agricultural Policy Simulator (FAPSIM), estimates production,
use and prices of major crops and livestock products; retail
food prices; and
[[Page H1276]]
net farm income. The method of analysis compares projections
of market variables under a baseline that assumes continued
use of MTBE with projections of those variables under the
assumed 4-year phase-out of MTBE.
The baseline for the analysis is the President's FY 2000
Budget projections. The baseline assumes provisions of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996
Farm Bill) continue through 2010. The baseline includes
projections of farm prices, production, domestic use
(including corn use for ethanol), exports, net farm income
and food prices for the period 1999-2010.
The President's FY 2000 Budget projections are based on
specific assumptions formulated at the end of last year
regarding the macro economy, weather, and international
developments. As a result, the baseline does not reflect the
current very weak price situation for most major crops,
including corn. However, over the next few years, crop prices
are likely to improve as the world economy improves and as
world grain and oilseed production declines in response to
low prices and less favorable weather.
A 1992 input-output (I-O) multiplier model was used to
estimate the effects of replacing MTBE with ethanol on U.S.
employment. Data from the 1993 County Business Patterns (U.S.
Department of Commerce) were used to estimate employment
effects for the Corn Belt region.
mtbe phase-out scenario
In 1998, about 1.5 billion gallons of denatured ethanol
were consumed in the United States--about 384 million gallons
were used in RFG and 1.1 billion gallons went to other
markets such as the CO and octane markets (table 1). Before
denaturing, corn-ethanol consumption equaled 1.3 billion
gallons in 1998 and approaches 1.5 billion gallons in 2004 in
the USDA baseline projections (table 2). In order to meet the
oxygen needs met by MTBE, ethanol production under the MTBE
phase-out would have to rise to 3.0 billion gallons in 2004.
Some ethanol is assumed to be bid away from lower-value
octane markets and move to RFG markets.
The volume of ethanol required in a gallon of RFG is less
than MTBE volume because 5.7 percent ethanol replaces 11
percent MTBE, at 2 percent oxygen. The reduced volume of
ethanol raises an issue of how the market will compensate for
the volume reduction. This analysis concludes that refineries
will replace volume and octane with increased alkylate
production. Refiners with the processing capability will
convert the isobutylene currently used for MTBE to alkylate.
Alkylate has a high octane rating and can be used to produce
premium gasoline. In addition, merchant producers looking for
alternatives to MTBE production will purchase isobutylene
from refineries and switch their MTBE production to alkylate.
Thus, the feedstocks that were used to produce MTBE will
remain in the gasoline pool in the form of alkylate. It is
assumed that the current supply of isobutylene used in MTBE
production is sufficient to produce enough alkylate to offset
the volume shortage created by ethanol. Consequently, the
analysis assumes the quantity of gasoline consumed in the
United States is the same under the baseline and the MTBE
phase-out scenario.
farm effects
The MTBE phase-out is projected to increase the amount of
ethanol produced from corn by 72 million gallons in 2000 and
by 1.4 billion gallons per year in 2010 (table 2). The
increase in ethanol production would increase the demand for
corn above baseline by 28 million bushels in 2000 to over 500
million bushels per year beginning in 2004. The analysis
assumes all of the increase in corn-ethanol production occurs
in new dry mills, which produce 2.6 gallons of ethanol per
bushel of corn, and 17 pounds of distillers dried grains
(DDG) with 27-percent protein. DDG are assumed to substitute
for soybean meal on an equivalent protein basis (table 2).
The increase in ethanol demand resulting from MTBE's phase-
out is projected to increase the average price of corn by
about $0.16 per bushel in 2010 and about $0.14 bushel
annually over the study period, 2000-2010 (table 3). Higher
corn prices cause feed use of other crops to increase,
leading to price increases of other grains, including
sorghum, barley, oats, and wheat. Soybean prices are
projected to decline by less than 1 percent. Higher corn
prices reduce soybean production, but the decline in
production is about offset by lower demand for soybean meal
resulting from the increase in DDG production. Soybean oil
prices increase in response to lower soybean production, but
soybean meal prices fall in the face of increased competition
in the protein feed market.
For cattle, hog and dairy producers, feed costs increase as
higher corn prices more than offset the drop in soybean meal
prices (table 3). In contrast, poultry, turkey, and egg
producers feed a higher portion of protein in their rations,
and for these producers, feed costs decline. Generally, the
effects on feed costs are very modest and there is little
change in livestock production and prices. Milk, steer and
hog prices are 1 to 2 percent higher, whereas poultry prices
are 1 to 2 percent lower on average over the 2000-2010
period.
Total farm cash receipts are projected to average $1.0
billion higher during 2000-2010 compared with the baseline
(table 4). Corn cash receipts rise due to higher prices and
more production (table 5). Over the period 2000-2010, cash
receipts for corn average $1.2 billion higher and increase by
over $1.6 billion, or about 9 percent, during 2010 (table 5).
Cash receipts for other feed grains and wheat also increase.
In contrast, slightly lower production (less than 2 percent)
and lower prices reduce soybean cash receipts by an average
of $315 million per year. Total livestock cash receipts
increase by less than 0.1 percent (table 6). Annual net farm
income is projected to average over $1.0 billion higher
during 2000-2010. Cumulatively over the 2000-2010 period, net
farm income increases by about $12 billion (table 4).
effects on trade
The MTBE phase-out is projected to increase prices for corn
and other agricultural commodities causing the average U.S.
agricultural net export value to increase by about $200
million per year (table 7). The export value for grains and
feeds increase by about $225 million per year, while the
export value of oilseeds and oilseed products decline
slightly. The export value of livestock and animal products
remains nearly unchanged.
The MTBE phase-out is expected to eliminate MTBE imports,
since one third of the MTBE currently consumed in the United
States is imported. Based on Energy Information
Administration (EIA) gasoline consumption projections, MTBE
consumption is expected to increase about 2 percent per year
without an MTBE phase-out. Assuming that the current price of
MTBE (about $0.72 per gallon) will increase by almost 1
percent annually, the import value of MTBE would average
about $1.1 billion per year. Thus replacing MTBE with ethanol
would reduce import value by $1.1 billion per year and almost
$12 billion from 2000-2010 (table 7). The net increase in
agricultural exports combined with the decrease in MTBE
imports is projected to result in an average annual positive
increase in the U.S. balance of trade of $1.3 billion per
year.
employment effects
Input-output analysis indicates that employment from
increasing ethanol production to 3.4 billion gallons
(denatured) in 2010 would create 13,000 additional jobs
across the entire economy. Over a third of the new jobs, or
4,300, would be in the ethanol sector itself. Another 6,400
jobs would be in the trade and transportation and service
sectors. Farm sector jobs increase by 575. Jobs in other
industry, food processing, and energy sectors also increase
by another 1,600 in 2010.
The Corn Belt region produces almost 80 percent of U.S.
ethanol production. Thus, 80 percent of the new jobs in
ethanol production, or about 3,600 jobs, are expected to
occur in this region. In addition, the MTBE phase-out would
create about 700 jobs in trade and transportation, 500 jobs
in other services, and 400 jobs in energy, food processing
and other industries in this region. The potential loss of
U.S. jobs from reducing MTBE imports were not estimated.
farm program costs
The increase in ethanol production with a MTBE phase-out
would be eligible for the Federal excise tax exemption on
gasoline, or equivalent tax credit, which would reduce
federal tax revenues. The exemption is currently $0.54 per
gallon and it is scheduled to drop to $0.53 on January 1,
2001, $0.52 on January 1, 2003 and $0.51 on January 1, 2005.
Under the current law, the tax exemption expires on December
31, 2006.
Under the FY 2000 President's Budget baseline, farm crop
prices are expected to strengthen from current levels, which
results in increased ethanol use having little to no impact
on the cost of farm price and income support programs during
the projection period. While loan deficiency payments and
marketing loan gains are currently forecast to reach $5.5
billion for the 1999 crops, these payments are projected to
drop rapidly under the baseline after the current year under
the projected price increases. And, since 1996 Farm Bill
production flexibility contract payments are not tied to the
level of market prices, these farm program costs do not fall
as market prices for corn and other grains increase, compared
with the baseline. However, farm prices are extremely
volatile and farm prices and incomes could fall enough in the
future to trigger loan deficiency payments and marketing loan
gains and, possibly, emergency aid to offset declines in farm
income. Higher corn and other grain prices under the MTBE
phase-out would lessen the need for emergency relief and
reduce loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains
should prices soften considerably from baseline levels. Where
loan deficiency payments are being made, each $0.10 increase
in corn prices could lower farm program outlays by about $1
billion per year.
transportation effects
Initially, ethanol is expected to be shipped by barge to
the Gulf and distributed to fuel blenders through customary
shipping channels. However, it is likely rail transport would
play an increasing role as the demand for ethanol increases,
and more rail connections between ethanol plants and refiners
are developed. In the long term, several transportation
options, including barge, rail, ocean vessels, and trucks
would be available for moving ethanol. Given a period of 3-5
years, there appears to be no transportation impediment to
the use of ethanol as a replacement for MTBE.
[[Page H1277]]
TABLE 1.--GASOLINE AND ETHANOL CONSUMPTION PROJECTIONS WITH MTBE PHASE-OUT \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By million gallons--
-----------------------------------------------
By billion gallons-- Projected Projected \3\ Ethanol
Year projected \2\ ethanol use in ethanol use in production
gasoline consumption RFG other markets from all crops
(denatured) (denatured) (denatured)
------------------------------------------------------------------------\4\-------------\4\-------------\4\-----
1997..................................... 126 372 1,041 1,413
1998..................................... 125 384 1,142 1,526
1999..................................... 127 457 1,103 1,560
2000..................................... 132 514 1,170 1,684
2001..................................... 135 774 1,119 1,893
2002..................................... 137 1,403 918 2,321
2003..................................... 139 1,802 899 2,701
2004..................................... 141 2,347 784 3,131
2005..................................... 144 2,384 894 3,278
2006..................................... 146 2,419 858 3,277
2007..................................... 148 2,452 824 3,276
2008..................................... 149 2,510 791 3,304
2009..................................... 152 2,570 780 3,330
2010..................................... 153 2,627 729 3,356
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On an oxygen equivalent basis, 0.52 volume of ethanol replaces 1 volume of MTBE.
\2\ Source: Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy. Total gasoline consumption is assumed to be
the same under the baseline and under the MTBE phase-out.
\3\ Ethanol use in other markets include CO market, State mandated markets and octane market.
\4\ Ethanol is denatured with 5-percent gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, Congress paid approximately $22.7 billion in farm
support programs last year. More than $15 billion of this was in
emergency payments. We should pursue policies which will allow farmers
to make a living off their land, not rely on government handouts.
A proposal which would hold the renewable fuels market to the status
quo does not help farmers, as that report shows. Replacing MTBE with
ethanol is a sensible agricultural policy we should enact, as well as a
sensible environmental policy.
Now, several groups have reviewed the provisions of H.R. 4011 and
have sent me letters expressing their reviews. I would like to share
some of their comments with my colleagues.
The Renewable Fuels Association, the trade group that represents the
domestic ethanol industry, writes: We are ``writing on behalf of the
members of the Renewable Fuels Association to express the enthusiastic
support of the domestic ethanol industry for Clean Air and Water
Preservation Act of 2000. Your bill forthrightly addresses the growing
national crisis of MTBE water contamination while preserving the air
quality benefits of the RFG program and stimulating rural economies by
increasing the demand for clean-burning fuel ethanol.''
``Clearly, the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000 meets''
these requirements. ``By phasing down MTBE use over three years, the
bill protects water supplies of every citizen''. ``The bill's anti-
backsliding provisions, particularly the cap on aromatics, assures''
air quality standards. ``The legislation also provides refiners with
significant flexibility and encourages the development of alternative
oxygenates so that the transition from MTBE can be made without
disruptions in gasoline supplies or increases in prices.''
The National Corn Growers Association says: ``With oil prices at
their highest levels in many years, it is clear that ethanol not only
should be used because it benefits public health, but also because it
reduces our dependence on foreign oil.''
We are writing ``on behalf of the 31,000 members of the National Corn
Growers Association in support of your bill entitled the Clean Air and
Water Preservation Act of 2000.''
The American Farm Bureau Federation sent the following bulletin to
its State offices yesterday. They wrote that the ``Farm Bureau supports
H.R. 4011, the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act, sponsored by
Representative Greg Ganske and Representative John Shimkus.'' The bill
phases out the use of MTBE in 3 years, provides assistance to States to
clean MTBE pollution, provides refiners flexibility with the oxygen
requirement, preserves air quality improvements under the Clean Air
Act, and urges refiners to switch to ethanol as soon as possible.
``Similar legislation is contemplated in the Senate.''
Mr. Speaker, I include the letters and the Bulletin for the Record,
as follows:
Renewable Fuels Association,
Washington, DC, March 15, 2000.
Hon. Greg Ganske,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Ganske: I am writing on behalf of the
members of the Renewable Fuels Association to express the
enthusiastic support of the domestic ethanol industry for the
Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000. Your bill
forthrightly addresses the growing national crisis of MTBE
water contamination while preserving the air quality benefits
of the RFG program and stimulating rural economies by
increasing the demand for clean-burning fuel ethanol.
As you know, I testified earlier this month before the
House Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
regarding the reformulated gasoline program and the need to
address MTBE water contamination. I noted that the ethanol
industry wants to be part of the solution, and outlined four
principles that should guide congressional action: Develop a
national solution; address the cause of the problem--MTBE;
protect the environment, i.e., no backsliding; and, provide
the necessary time and ``flexibility'' to allow refiners to
make a rational transition to increased ethanol utilization.
Clearly, the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000
meets each of these objectives. By phasing down MTBE use over
three years, the bill protects the water supplies of every
citizen, not just those in certain states. The bill's anti-
backsliding provisions, particularly the cap on aromatics,
assures the current air quality benefits of the RFG program
will be preserved. The legislation also provides refiners
with significant flexibility and encourages the development
of alternative oxygenates so that the transition from MTBE
can be made without disruptions in gasoline supplies or
increases in price.
Oil prices are rising to record levels. The farm economy
continues to suffer. And water supplies from coast to coast
are being jeopardized by the uncontrolled use of MTBE. Never
has the need for ethanol been greater. We need to protect
both air quality and precious water resources. With ethanol,
and your legislation, we can. I look forward to working with
you to see the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000
become law.
Sincerely,
Eric Vaughn,
President.
____
National Corn Growers Association,
Washington, DC, March 17, 2000.
Hon. Greg Ganske,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Ganske: I am writing this letter on
behalf of the 31,000 members of the National Corn Growers
Association in support of your bill entitled the Clean Air
and Water Preservation Act of 2000. Your bill embraces many
of the principles NCGA believes are important if Congress is
going to successfully address the problems surrounding MTBE
water contamination across the country.
In addition, NCGA supports the principles in your bill that
call for a national solution to the MTBE problem, protection
of the environment and public health, and flexibility that
allows markets to adjust as the demand for ethanol increases.
We enthusiastically support this approach because it
recognizes that ethanol is not part of the problem, it is
part of the solution. We especially appreciate the support
your bill gives to ethanol as a clean oxygenate in the
reformulated gasoline program.
With oil prices at their highest levels in many years, it
is clear that ethanol not only should be used because it
benefits public health, but also because it reduces our
dependence on foreign oil.
We appreciate your efforts and look forward to working with
you on passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Lynn Jensen,
President.
____
Governmental Relations Bulletin--Action Requested
March 21, 2000.
Re Clinton administration takes action on fuel requirements.
To: Presidents, Secretaries and/or administrators,
coordinators of national affairs, directors of information,
directors of commodity activities, coordinators of natural
and environmental resources, area field service directors,
park ridge and Washington office distribution.
From: Dick Newpher, Executive Director, Washington Office.
Yesterday, EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Agriculture
Secretary Dan Glickman announced proposals that will reduce
and ultimately eliminate the use of methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) in reformulated fuels. MTBEs have been blamed in
numerous cases of water pollution. The petroleum-based
product currently has more than 80 percent of the market for
oxygenate additives used in gasoline to comply with the Clean
Air Act. Ethanol provides the remainder of the oxygenate
additives used in the U.S.
The proposal outlines both a regulatory and legislative
strategy. The EPA will proceed with a proposed notice of
rulemaking and the Clinton Administration will push for
statutory changes in the Clean Air Act to implement the
announced changes.
The proposal outlined the following steps:
Amend the Clean Air Act to provide authority to reduce or
eliminate the use of MTBE;
Assure that the goals of the Clean Air Act are not
diminished; and,
The administration recommends that Congress replace the 2
percent oxygenate requirement in the Clean Air Act with a
renewable fuel annual average content for all gasoline at a
level that maintains the current use level of renewable fuel
(1.2 percent of the gasoline supply).
The standard of 1.2 percent renewable fuels content would
be a national average content
[[Page H1278]]
requirement and would NOT significantly increase the use of
ethanol. A better scenario for the ethanol industry would be
to retain the two percent oxygenate requirement under the
current Clean Air Act because ethanol is the only viable
alternative to MTBE. Additionally, there will be substantial
political opposition in the Congress to any measure calling
for a mandate on renewable fuel content.
AFBF will analyze the proposed rule when it is released
sometime in the next few months. However, the main effort
will be to work with members of Congress to move legislation
that will eliminate MTBE and replace it with ethanol. Farm
Bureau supports H.R. 4011, the Clean Air and Water
Preservation Act, sponsored by Rep. Greg Ganske (R-IA) and
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL). The bill: (1) phases out the use of
MTBE within three years; (2) provides assistance to states to
clean MTBE pollution; (3) provides refiners some flexibility
with the oxygen requirement; (4) preserves air quality
improvements make under the Clean Air Act; and, (5) urges
refiners to switch to ethanol as soon as possible. Similar
legislation is contemplated in the Senate.
Action requested: State Farm Bureaus are requested to
contact their members of the House to cosposnor H.R. 4011.
(Contact: Jon Doggett, [email protected]) F:/grb/ethanol00.321
Mr. Speaker, I have also received letters from the Iowa Farm Bureau
Federation and the Illinois Corn Growers Association expressing support
for H.R. 4011. I include those letters for the Record, as follows:
Iowa Farm
Bureau Federation
West Des Moines, IA, March 16, 2000.
Hon. Greg Ganske,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Ganske: The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation
supports your efforts to ban the use of MTBE and to preserve
the oxygenate requirement under the Clean Air Act. The issue
of MTBE's negative impact on water quality has elevated this
issue in the public's eye. It is imperative that Congress
take action to address these concerns.
We believe that a federal ban on MTBE use can be coupled
with an expansion of ethanol use. Several states are pushing
to waive their participation in the reformulated gasoline
program under the Clean Air Act. Farm Bureau strongly opposes
such efforts. We believe that ethanol is a good alternative
to MTBE and that these states should be encouraged to replace
their MTBE use with ethanol.
Your legislation ensures that Iowa farmers will continue to
have a role in providing clean air by creating a stronger
role for ethanol. We applaud your efforts and look forward to
working with you to implement this legislation.
Sincerely,
Ed Wiederstein,
President.
____
Illinois Corn Growers Association,
Bloomington, IL, March 22, 2000.
Hon. -- --
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman -- -- --: We would appreciate your
consideration of co-sponsoring H.R. 4011. This bill addresses
concerns which have surfaced concerning MTBE contamination of
groundwater and continues to maintain a role for ethanol in
the Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) of the Clean Air Act.
H.R. 4011 was introduced by Congressman Shimkus (IL) and
Congressman Ganske (IA) and has bi-partisan support from
downstate Illinois Congressmen co-sponsoring the Bill for the
following reasons:
1. This bill addresses the problems with MTBE by banning
MTBE within three years and requiring labeling of MTBE on
gasoline dispensers in the interim. The Chicago City Council,
led by the efforts of Alderman Bernard Hansen, has
unanimously passed a resolution asking for a ban on MTBE use
in our largest city because of the environmental
implications.
2. This bill gives refiners flexibility in blending oxygen
and meeting the oxygenate requirement of RFG without
eliminating the requirement and hurting the ethanol market.
Ethanol is critical to the success of the state's
agricultural economy. Ethanol uses 160 million bushels of
corn to supply the Chicago metro market alone. This market
results in an additional 10 cents per bushel for all the corn
sold in Illinois, according to the Illinois Resource
Allocation Model. This sophisticated computer model is
operated by the U of I Agricultural Economics Department.
3. Lastly, H.R. 4011 prohibits environmental backsliding by
raising the standards on emissions reductions and prohibiting
an increase in the use of gasoline aromatics (which can lead
to cancer-causing particular emissions).
For these reasons, farmers in Illinois need your help.
Please consider co-sponsoring H.R. 4011.
Sincerely,
Leon Corzine,
President.
{time} 2320
Mr. Speaker, this is good agricultural policy. This is good
environmental policy. Now, despite the benefits of ethanol for the
Nation's air quality, water quality, and agriculture, some groups have
decided to question ethanol. Those detractors include some well-known
environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, two groups that also consistently extol the virtues of
renewable fuels. Well, let us go into this in some detail.
In yesterday's Washington Post a spokesperson from the NRDC said,
``Ethanol, when combusted forms formaldehyde and other by-products
which pose potential public health threats.'' According to the article,
some ``scientists'' claim that very few studies have been done on the
health effects associated with inhalation of ethanol vapors. I would
like to address these allegations.
First of all, ethanol does not produce formaldehyde. MTBE produces
formaldehyde. NRDC sites as their reference a study submitted to the
California legislature entitled ``An Evaluation of the Scientific Peer
Review Research and Literature on the Human Health Effect of MTBE, its
Metabolites, Combustion Products and Substitute Compounds.'' However,
in another report, ``Air Quality Impacts on the Use of Ethanol in
California Reformulated Gasoline,'' the California Environmental
Protection Agency's Air Resources Board states, ``The major products of
concern for ethanol are acetaldehyde and peroxyacetyl nitrate, an eye
irritant. These compounds are offset by reductions in formaldehyde.''
Let me repeat that. The California Environmental Protection Agency
directly contradicts a statement by the NRDC by saying that some
products from the burning of ethanol produce acetaldehyde and certain
nitrates, but that those compounds are offset by reductions in
formaldehyde due to the elimination of MTBE. So it appears that NRDC
was mistaken.
There have also been allegations that ethanol produces what is called
ETBE, ethyl tertiary butyl, ether when run through a combustion engine.
Once again, that is not true. Ethanol can be used to produce ETBE, but
that would require additional components and a catalyst for a chemical
reaction, and that does not occur in the internal combustion engine.
Associated with that statement is speculation that ethanol's
increased volatility will increase hydrocarbon emissions, thereby
posing an increased inhalation hazard. Well, Mr. Speaker, research
evaluating ethanol blended fuel and nonethanol fuel has shown that
while the evaporation rate for ethanol blended gasoline was increased,
less hydrocarbon was volatilized relative to nonethanol fuel. It was
determined the increased evaporation of ethanol blended fuel was due to
the evaporation of the ethanol itself.
Another statement contained in yesterday's Post concerned health
implications associated with the inhalation of ethanol. Well, Mr.
Speaker, I am a physician. I have looked at this in some detail. Now,
those ``some scientists'' may be right that there has not been a great
amount of research done on the project, but ethanol is a naturally
occurring compound which is found in very low levels in the blood and
the breath of humans, even those who do not drink alcohol. The
available scientific literature shows that there is a low risk of harm
from ethanol inhalation. That can be attributed to the rapid metabolism
of ethanol and the difficulty of significantly raising blood ethanol
concentrations through breathing.
I have here a report by Cambridge Environmental Incorporated entitled
``Ethanol: A Brief Report on Its Use in Gasoline.'' Mr. Speaker, I
would like to submit this for the Record at this point as well.
Ethanol--Brief Report on Its Use in Gasoline
(By Sarah R. Armstrong, M.S., M.S.)
introduction
The purpose of this short paper is to summarize information
about ethanol's health and environmental effects, given
ethanol's use as a fuel oxygenate. The conclusions are: (1)
ethanol is readily degraded in the environment; (2)
anticipated human exposures to ethanol are very low; and (3)
voluminous information on metabolism of ethanol by humans,
and on the health effects of ingested ethanol, strongly
suggests that environmental exposures to ethanol will have no
adverse health impact.
environmental behavior
Recent reviews of the environmental behavior of gasoline
oxygenates generally note
[[Page H1279]]
that ethanol is not likely to accumulate or persist for long
in the environment. For example, the Interagency Assessment
of Oxygenated Fuels (NSTC, 1997) observes that ethanol is
expected to be rapidly degraded in groundwater and is not
expected to persist beyond source areas. Ethanol in surface
water is also expected to undergo rapid biodegradation, as
long as it is not present in concentrations directly toxic to
microorganisms (NSTC, 1997; Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1998). The
half-life of ethanol in surface water is reported to range
from 6.5 to 26 hours (Howard et al., 1991). Atmospheric
degradation is also predicted to be rapid (Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., 1998).
In part, expectations of ethanol's degradability rely on
experiments that use microcosms of groundwater and soil
mixtures to demonstrate that ethanol is rapidly degraded both
aerobically (100 mg/l in 7 days, Corseuil et al., 1998); and
anaerobically (100 mg/l in 3 to 25 days, depending on
conditions, Corseuil et al., 1998; 96 mg/l within 30 days,
Suflita and Mormile, 1993; 100 mg/l within 14 days, Yeh and
Novak, 1994). In these experiments, ethanol generally delays
degradation of BTX, but not always, and some investigators
(Corseuil et al., 1998) caution against generalizations about
ethanol's effect.
health effects
Ethanol, the active ingredient of alcoholic beverages, has
been part of the human diet--and the human environment--for
thousands of years. It is produced by fermentation by fungi
and other microorganisms, and is found at low levels in the
blood and breath of persons who do not drink alcohol.
Biological exposures and responses to ethanol are typically
evaluated in terms of the blood concentrations, where the
units of concentration are milligrams of ethanol per
deciliter of blood, or mg/dl. Some blood ethanol
concentrations (BEC) and associated effects are shown in
Table 1. Endogenous blood levels of ethanol range from non-
detectable to 0.02 mg/dl to 0.15 mg/dl (Jones, 1985; Lester,
1962). A typical alcoholic beverage contains 12 g of
alcohol, corresponds to a dose of about 170 mg/kg for a
70-kg adult, and produces a peak blood ethanol
concentration on the order of 25 mg/dl. Legal limits on
blood alcohol for drivers of vehicles are typically 80-100
mg/dl.
Ethanol is widely ingested in alcoholic beverages, usually
with only mild effects. However, at sufficiently high doses,
ethanol can cause toxic effects in humans, both short-term
(such as inebriation) and long-term (such as cirrhosis of the
liver). If ethanol becomes a common fuel additive, there may
be opportunities for exposure by inhalation: ethanol vapors
might be inhaled at gasoline stations or in automobiles, for
example. Thus, concern has been raised about the possible
health consequences of using ethanol for this purpose.
The scientific literature contains virtually no reports of
injury to humans from inhaled ethanol. The apparent lack of
harm may be attributable to rapid metabolism of ethanol and
the difficulty in significantly raising blood ethanol
concentrations by inhalation exposure, which keep internal
doses extremely low except in unusual situations, such as
heavy exercise in the presence of concentrated vapors. The
occupational standard for ethanol in air is 1000 ppm (1900
mg/m3) on an eight-hour basis. The occupational
experience with ethanol in air appears to be favorable: no
symptoms at levels below 1000 ppm are reported: at this or
higher concentrations, ethanol vapor causes eye and upper
respiratory tract irritation, fatigue, headache, and
sleepiness (ACGIH, 1991; Clayton and Clayton, 1994). No
reports regarding chronic exposure of humans to ethanol
vapors have been located.
Laboratory animals, chiefly rats, have been subjected to
inhalation exposure in a variety of experiments, most
investigating aspects of central nervous system or
developmental toxicity. The majority of exposures have been
short-term, of less than two weeks, but many of these were
continuous. The study of longest duration, 90 days, also used
the lowest concentration of ethanol, 86 mg/m3 (45
ppm); otherwise, experimental designs typically produced
atmospheres of thousands of mg/m3 (or ppm),
frequently in order to develop ethanol dependence. Blood
ethanol concentrations were often, but no always, determined.
The great majority of BEC measurements were above 100 mg/dl.
The paucity of direct evidence regarding the possible
effects of inhaled ethanol does not mean, however, that the
possible consequences are unpredictable. In fact, the data
strongly suggest that exposure of the general public to
ethanol vapors coming from oxygenated gasoline is very
unlikely to have any adverse consequences. While there is
little, if any data, on the toxicity of ingested ethanol
itself in humans, it is generally accepted that the vast
literature on the effects of alcoholic beverages is highly
relevant. Alcohol abuse is a significant medical and social
problem, and is the impetus for most research into ethanol
toxicology, both in humans and Experimental animals. A
consequence of this is that little experimental data
address the levels of internal exposure that can be
reasonably anticipated to result from using ethanol as an
oxygenate. A second motivation for experimental work in
ethanol is fetal alcohol syndrome (or fetal alcohol
effects) which, in theory at least, could be caused by
relatively brief maternal exposures to ethanol during
pregnancy.
Since ethanol's important toxic effects require that the
material first enter the bloodstream, one can evaluate
inhalation exposures in terms of the blood alcohol
concentrations they would produce. Prediction of BEC
following exposure to ethanol vapors must consider several
factors; (a) the concentration of ethanol in air, (b) the
duration of exposure, (c) breathing rate, (d) absorption of
ethanol across the lungs, and (e) the body's elimination rate
of ethanol. Two of these factors are more or less constant in
every situation. Experiments in humans have shown that from
55% to 60% of inhaled vapors are absorbed into the
bloodstream (Kruhoffer, 1983; Lester and Greenberg, 1951).
The rate of clearance of ethanol from the blood
(Vmax) is about 15 mg/dl/hr (Pohorecky and Brick,
1987) but may be as high as 23 mg/dl/hr (Holford, 1987);
these rates correspond to elimination of 83 mg/kg/hr to 127
mg/kg/hr, or about 6 to 9 g of ethanol per hour for an adult.
For comparison's sake, it should be noted that a single
alcoholic drink contains about 12 g of ethanol (IARC, 1988).
As long as a person's intake of ethanol does not exceed
Vmax, blood alcohol levels will stay low. In table
2 are shown the intake rates for ethanol inhaled under a
variety of conditions, assuming absorption across the lungs
of 55 % and a standard body weight of 70 kg. In bold type are
intakes above 83 mg/kg/hr, the lower estimate of alcohol
clearance: exposure under these conditions could lead to an
accumulation of ethanol in the blood and a rising BEC. Under
the other conditions given, the body's ability to eliminate
ethanol is not exceeded, and BEC levels would remain below
toxic levels.
The calculations suggest that exposure to ethanol vapors
that are irritating to the eyes and mucous membranes, while
uncomfortable, would not cause a significant rise in BEC in
persons at rest. As actively increases, ethanol increases,
but vapor concentrations would need to exceed the
occupational limit by a substantial margin in order to cause
a rise in BEC. Some experimental work demonstrates that
significant uptake of ethanol through the air is unusual, or
difficult, as shown in Table 3. Moderate activity in the
presence of irritation vapors is required.
Possible inhalation exposures to ethanol due to use in gasoline
Opportunities for inhalation exposure of the general public
to ethanol used as gasoline oxygenated include vapors inhaled
while fueling vehicles and ambient air. The first sort
of exposure would be relatively brief, no more than five
minutes, perhaps, while the second could last for many
hours. These scenarios are considered in more detail
below.
Very limited investigations of personal exposures during
refueling have so far failed to detect ethanol, where
detection limits were 50 ppm or less (HEI, 1996). If
refueling involved five-minute exposures at the occupational
limit of 1,000 ppm, an adult might receive an ethanol dose of
0.13 g (about 2 mg/kg). Such an exposure might increase BEC
by about 0.3 mg/dl, at most. Exposure to such a high level of
ethanol is unlikely. The Health Effects Institute evaluated
hypothetical exposures of 1 ppm for three minutes and 10 ppm
for 15 minutes, and determined that incremental changes in
BEC would be insignificant (HEI, 1996).
Data on ambient air concentrations of ethanol are few. The
average ambient level in air in the city of Porto Alegre,
Brazil, where 17% of vehicles run entirely on ethanol, is 12
ppb (0.023 mg/m\3\) (Grosjean et al., 1998). The lowest
concentration of ethanol tested for toxicity in animals was
almost 4,000-times greater than this (86 mg/m\3\, 45 ppm). A
person might receive half a milligram of ethanol per day from
ambient air containing 12 ppb of ethanol, a negligible dose.
other health effects issues
Some of ethanol's known or suspected toxic effects have not
been, or can not be, quantified in terms of BEC. Fetal
alcohol syndrome (FAS), for example, is constellation of
physical and mental deficiencies in children linked to
maternal alcohol ingestion. Risk of FAS is a function of
alcohol intake during pregnancy: the frequency of this
syndrome is twice as great for children of heavy drinkers as
for children of moderate or non-drinkers (Schardein, 1993).
While it may be prudent to abstain from alcohol during
pregnancy, a risk from daily consumption of less than 30 g of
alcohol has not been proved (Schardein, 1993). Cancer of
certain organs has been observed to occur at elevated rates
in some groups of drinkers--the World Health Organization,
for example, has linked alcohol consumption to cancer of the
oral cavity, pharynx, esophagus, larynx, and liver (IARC,
1988). In almost all of the studies, risks were observed
among alcoholics or were seen to increase with consumption.
Finally, if we look to human experience with alcohol
consumption for information regarding toxic effects of
ethanol, it is fair also to look at the evidence for possible
health benefits. Numerous epidemiologic studies have observed
that light-to-moderate drinkers of alcohol have lower
mortality rates than either alcohol abstainers or heavy
drinkers. Reduced mortality is due to decrease rates of fatal
coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease. To be
sure, the picture is complicated, varying by sex, age, and
disease risk factors, and competing causes of death. We are
not suggesting that low-level exposures to ethanol due to its
use as an oxygenate is desirable. At the least, however, the
apparent beneficial effects of alcohol (or ethanol) for
some cohorts should be recognized.
conclusion
It is highly unlikely that exposure to airborne ethanol
associated with gasoline use
[[Page H1280]]
could produce toxic effects. The reasons for this are (a) the
tiny doses that might be received, which might not be
observable in light of endogenous levels of ethanol in blood,
(b) the body's rapid elimination of ethanol, and (c) the
relatively large doses of ethanol and high blood levels of
ethanol associated with toxic effects in people. No data in
the scientific literature support the hypothesis that chronic
exposure to non-irritating levels of ethanol in air could
cause significant elevation of BEC (unless exposed
individuals are exercising at the time), or that a risk of
cancer or birth defects would be created. A recent survey of
the literature regarding the inhalation toxicity of ethanol
by the Swedish Institute for Environmental Medicine reached
similar conclusions, namely that ``a high blood concentration
of ethanol is needed for the development of adverse effects''
and ``ethanol at low air concentrations should not constitute
a risk for the general population (Andersson and Victorin,
1996).
TABLE 1.--ETHANOL DOSE-RESPONSE DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEC (mg/dl) Observation Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.02-0.15..................... Endogenous (i.e. Jones, 1985;
natural) level. Lester, 1962.
50............................ Central nervous system Pohorecky and
stimulant; Brick, 1987.
talkativeness;
relaxation.
100........................... Legal limit for ................
automobile drivers in
many states.
>100.......................... Central nervous system Pohorecky and
depressant; decreased Brick, 1987.
sensory and motor
function; decreased
mental and cognitive
ability.
110........................... No effect on heart Pohorecky and
function. Brick, 1987.
140........................... No effect on cerebral Pohorecky and
blood flow; effects Brick, 1987.
occur above this
level.
300........................... Stupefaction.......... Pohorecky and
Brick, 1987.
400........................... Possible lethal level. Pohorecky and
Brick, 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--INTAKE RATE OF ETHANOL UNDER VARIOUS EXPOSURE CONDITIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intake rate of ethanol (mg/kg/hr) when the concentration in air is (mg/l)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 (causes
coughing and
Ventilation rate (l/min) 1.9 eye 30 (causes
(occupational 5 irritation; 20 continuous
standard) adaptation lacrimation)
occurs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 (rest)........................ 5 14 28 57 85
25 (moderate activity).......... 22 59 118 236 354
40 (heavy activity)............. 36 94 189 377 566
50 (very heavy activity)........ 45 118 236 471 707
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3.--EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF VAPOR UPTAKE BY HUMANS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration of ethanol Duration of
Ventilation rate (l/min) in air (mg/l) exposure (hrs) BEC (mg/dl) Symptoms Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rest (approx. 6)..................... 1.9..................... 3 <0.2 None reported........... Campbell and Wilson
(1986).
15................................... 15...................... Steady at 7-8 Vapors irritating but Lester and Greenberg
adaptation occurred; no (1951).
intoxication.
22................................... 16...................... 6 47 and rising Vapors irritating but Lester and Greenberg
adaptation occurred; no (1951).
intoxication.
Rest (approx. 6)..................... Maximum of 17 average 2.5 <5 Vapors irritating but Mason and Blackmore
approx. 9. adaptation occurred; no (1972).
intoxication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Andersson, P. and Victorin, K. (1996). Inhalation of
Ethanol: Literature Survey and Risk Assessment. IMM-rapport
3/96. Institutet for Miljomedicin (Institute of Environmental
Medicine), Karolinska Institute: Stockholm, Sweden.
American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) (1991). Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values
and Biological Exposure Indices, sixth edition. Cincinnati,
OH.
Campbell, L. and Wilson, H. (1986). J. Forensic Sci. Soc.
26:129.
Clayton, G. and Clayton, F. (1994). Patty's Industrial
Hygiene and Toxicology, fourth edition. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Corseuil, H.X., Hunt, C.S., Ferreira, R.C., et al. (1998).
Wat. Res. 32(7):2065.
Grosjean, E., Grosjean, D., Gunawardena, R., and Rasmussen
R.A. (1998). Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:736.
Health Effects Institute (HEI) (1996). The Potential Health
Effects of Oxygenates Added to Gasoline: A Review of the
Current Literature. HEI: Cambridge, MA.
Holford, N. (1987). Clin. Pharmacokin. 13:273.
Hooper, G., Steed, K.P., Gittins, D.P., et al. (1995).
Resp. Med. 89:457.
Howard, P.H. Boethling, R.S., Jarvis, W.F. et al. (1991).
Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates. Lewis
Publishers: Chelsea, MI.
HSDB (1994). Hazardous Substances DataBank record for
ethanol.
IARC (1988). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of
Carcinogenic Risks to Humans vol. 44. World Health
Organization: Lyon, France.
Jones, A.W. (1985). J. Anal. Toxicol. 9:246.
Kruhoffer, P. (1983). Forensic Sci. Int. 21:1.
Lester, D. (1962). Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol 23:17.
Lester, D. and Greenberg, L. (1951). Q. J. Stud. Alcohol
12:167.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (1998). Evaluation of the Fate and
Transport of Ethanol in the Environment. Prepared for the
American Methanol Institute.
Mason, J. and Blackmore, D. (1972). Medicine Sci. Law
12(3):205.
Myou, S., Fujimura, M., Nishi, K., et al. (1996). Allergy
51:52.
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) (1997).
Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels. Executive Office
of the President.
Pohorecky, L. and Brick, J. (1988). Pharmac. Ther. 36:335.
Schardein, J. (1993). Chemically Induced Birth Defects,
second ed. Marcel Dekker: New York, New York.
Suflita, J.M. and Mormile, M.R. (1993). Environ. Sci.
Technol. 27:976.
Wallace, L. (1989). Environ. Health Persp. 82:165.
Yeh, C.K. and Novak, J.T. (1994). Water Environ. Res.
66:744.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, that report succinctly addresses the health
risks associated with ethanol inhalation, and I would like to read a
couple of excerpts from the report.
The occupational standards for ethanol in air is 1,000
parts per million on an 8-hour basis. No symptoms at levels
below 1,000 parts per million are reported. At this or higher
concentrations, ethanol vapor may cause eye and upper
respiratory tract irritation, fatigue, headache or
sleepiness.
But then it goes on to say,
Data strongly suggests that exposure to the general public
to ethanol vapors coming from oxygenated gasoline is very
unlikely to have any adverse consequences.
Ethanol vapors only affect the health of an individual if the blood
ethanol content reaches a level associated with intoxication. Most
definitions of legal intoxication are about 80 milligrams per
decaliter. In order for that to occur, the inhalation rate of ethanol
vapors would have to exceed the rate at which the body eliminates
ethanol from the blood stream. Conservative estimates place that
elimination rate at 83 milligrams per kilogram per hour.
Tests show that within the occupational standard ethanol
concentration level of 1.9 milligrams per liter, a person could engage
in heavy activity with a ventilation rate of 50 liters per minute and
still only intake vapors at a rate of 45 milligrams per kilogram per
hour, far below the rate of blood metabolism. Only when the
concentration of ethanol in the air begins to significantly increase
does the intake rate begin to supercede the elimination rate.
According to these studies, even concentrations that would irritate
the eyes would not cause a significant rise in blood ethanol
concentrations. Only under highly elevated concentration levels,
combined with at least moderate activities would the blood ethanol
concentration exceed the elimination rate. The real world experience
shows that that is just not going to happen.
A study done in Brazil, which uses ethanol in almost all of its
gasoline, indicates that the ambient air concentrations of ethanol are
far below the occupational standard of 1,000 parts per million. In
fact, in Porto Alegre, where 17 percent of vehicles run on 100 percent
ethanol, the ambient air concentration
[[Page H1281]]
is only 12 parts per billion. The lowest concentration of ethanol
tested for toxicity in animals was 4,000 times greater than this
concentration.
We can rest assured that ethanol inhalation will not be a health
problem, Mr. Speaker.
There are several other allegations circulating about the negative
attributes of ethanol, and I would like to address a couple of these
today. Some have said that ethanol is not energy efficient. I beg to
differ.
I have a report issued by the Department of Agriculture's Office of
Energy in July 1995 that says ethanol produces 25 percent more energy
than is required to make it. This estimate incorporates the energy
required to till the fields, plant the corn, run the combine to harvest
the product, mill the corn and produce the ethanol. A 25 percent net
energy gain.
Another study, this one by the Institute for Local Self-reliance,
says the net energy gain is higher than that. If you take into
consideration all energy inputs required to grow corn, like fertilizer,
pesticide, irrigation, transport, and process it into one gallon of
ethanol, total energy inputs are about 81,000 Btus. In return, one
gallon of ethanol provides about 84,000 Btus of energy.
But if you also consider the energy associated with other by-products
of ethanol production, such as high protein feed grain, total energy
output potential is about 111,000 Btus, or a 38 percent net energy
gain.
{time} 2330
That is based on industry averages. Furthermore, that study reported
that if farmers are using state-of-the-art agriculture practices, they
can significantly reduce their own energy inputs and they can raise the
net energy gain to 151 percent.
Mr. Speaker, ethanol is a very energy efficient product. Now, some
have argued that ethanol makes no sense outside of the Midwest because
it is difficult and expensive to transport. Now, it is true that
transporting ethanol by pipeline may not be an option.
But the Department of Agriculture's report, which I mentioned earlier
and is now a part of the RECORD, details the likely distribution of
ethanol. ``Given a period of 3 to 5 years, there appears to be no
transportation impediment to the use of ethanol as a replacement for
MTBE.''
The most likely distribution scenario is that corn ethanol from the
Midwest would travel by freighter or by rail. But I have to remind any
colleagues that corn is not the only product being converted into
ethanol, and the Midwest is not the only potential source for ethanol
production. Ethanol is being produced from 27 different raw materials
throughout the Nation. It can be produced by cellulose, bio-mass,
municipal waste.
In California there is a product to convert rice straw into ethanol,
thereby providing an alternative to sending that by-product to
landfill. The potential, Mr. Speaker, is enormous.
But even while those other sources are being developed and perfected,
we have evidence that ethanol can be transported successfully
throughout the Nation. Getty Petroleum proves that.
Last year, Getty switched its 1,200 stations located throughout 12
northeast States from MTBE to ethanol in a transition which the company
described as ``seamless.''
Getty wrote to California Governor Gray Davis in September 1999. They
said,
Virtually every one of our terminals is capable of
receiving gasoline products, including ethanol, by either
rail or barge. Receiving products in this way as opposed to
pipeline shipment is not problematic. I can tell you, for
example, that receiving water-borne tank-loads of ethanol is
no different from receiving water-borne shipments of
gasoline. It is done all the time and represents no
additional burden to gasoline marketers. Blending equipment
for gasoline additives exists at every fuel terminal in the
country. Merely augmenting those systems to allow for ethanol
blending is neither complex nor time consuming. I see no
reason why my experience in the northeast is unique and could
not be duplicated in California.
Well, Mr. Speaker, Getty's experience tells us ethanol can be
supplied throughout the Nation. In addition, I have learned of
experiments in which petroleum companies are trying to pipe ethanol. To
do that and to prevent water absorption, they send a slug of gasoline
followed by a slug of ethanol followed by another slug of gasoline. The
components are then blended near the point of final dispersion.
This may be a new method for transporting ethanol. But we have to
remember, the petroleum industry is very innovative, they will find a
way. But I would like to ask my colleagues to consider one thing. What
happens if we continue to ship MTBE by pipeline, and let us say that
pipeline breaks somewhere and we have thousands, maybe tens of
thousands, of gallons of MTBE soaking into the ground and contaminating
the water? That would be an environmental disaster.
Finally, let me say a third of MTBE use in America comes from the
Middle East. I find it hard to believe that transporting MTBE from
Saudi Arabia is more cost effective and less difficult than
transporting ethanol from Iowa. And with ethanol, we do not need to
station a carrier, battle group on the Mississippi River to protect our
supplies.
Some have also claimed that ethanol will ruin modern vehicle engine
components. That is just baloney. Studies have shown the use of ethanol
in motor fuels does not produce mechanical problems. In fact, currently
all vehicle manufacturers approve the use of up to 10 percent ethanol
blended fuels. Modern fuel system components are designed to ensure
that they are compatible with a wide range of fuel formulations.
In fact, the oil company Mobil says that ethanol keeps fuel injection
systems clean so they perform better.
Mr. Speaker, this brochure issued by Mobil discusses many of the
benefits associated with ethanol blended fuels. Some of the key points
conclude ethanol is safe to use in any type of engine. Ethanol will
help vehicles run in the winter. Ethanol produces significant
reductions in both carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions.
Using ethanol blended fuel is one of the easiest ways you can help
reduce air pollution and our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. Speaker, this is a brochure put out by Mobil. It says, ``why is
ethanol good for your car?'' Well, the oil industry has spoken and it
is clear that it believes that ethanol is a good fuel additive.
I would like to note, since ethanol was introduced in the late 1970s,
Americans have driven more than 2 trillion miles with ethanol renewable
fuel.
Mr. Speaker, the MTBE clean water/clean air quandary requires a
comprehensive and sensible approach. It is not just one issue. It is
several issues. My bill addresses them all. It phases out MTBE in 3
years and replaces it with ethanol. H.R. 4011 helps States clean up
existing MTBE water contamination. It protects air quality by raising
the standards for emissions and aromatic content. It spurs the
development of additional oxygenates to ensure continued water and air
quality. It contributes to our energy security by promoting the
expansion of domestically produced renewable energy. It is the solution
that this Congress has been looking for for many years.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this Mobil brochure:
Why Is Ethanol Good for Your Car?
Did you know . . .
Last year over 10% of all gasoline in the United States
contained ethanol.
Fuel with 10% ethanol has been certified by the
Environmental Protection Agency to reduce carbon monoxide
emissions by up to 30%.
Since 1981, over 152 billion gallons of ethanol blends have
been used in the United States. With an average mileage of 20
mpg, that is over 3 trillion miles of proven experience with
ethanol blends.
Mobil goes to great lengths to ensure that we deliver to
you the best quality gasoline available--with or without
ethanol. All of our gasoline meets or exceeds the
specifications of the federal government and the American
Society for Testing and Materials. In many cases we will use
ethanol to oxygenate our gasoline in order to help meet clean
air goals and reduce emissions. Like our customers, we
believe in doing our part to protect our planet's natural
resources and our environment.
Ethanol . . . Engine friendly, Clean burning, American made
. . . Power.
Q. How will ethanol affect my engine?
A. Ethanol is safe to use in any type of engine. Ethanol is
covered under warranty by every automaker that sells cars in
the United States. It's safe to use in your car, truck,
motorcycle or any other engine. In fact, many automakers
actually recommend reformulated gasolines like those that
contain ethanol.
[[Page H1282]]
Tests have concluded that ethanol does not increase
corrosion, nor will it harm any seals or valves.
Q. Will ethanol plug my fuel filter?
A Generally no. You can feel safe using ethanol. Ethanol is
a very clean burning fuel that has some detergent properties.
These detergents work to reduce build-up and keep your
engine running smooth. In fact, using ethanol may even
improve the performance of your vehicle.
Q. How will ethanol affect my fuel injection system?
A. Ethanol helps keep fuel injection systems clean so they
perform better. Problems with fuel injection plugging are the
result of dirty fuel--not ethanol. Some gasolines today do
not, by themselves, contain enough detergent additive.
Therefore, ethanol is also valuable as a cleaning agent that
helps prevent problems.
Q. Will using ethanol help me during the winter?
A. Yes. The ethanol recommended for use in motor fuels is
an anhydrous, or water-free additive. It absorbs moisture and
helps prevent gas-line freeze-up in cold weather. It works
much like gasline antifreeze that some motorists add to their
gas tanks in the winter.
Using ethanol-blended fuel in the winter means you won't
need to add expensive and possibly harmful additives to your
fuel. Ethanol in your gasoline will protect your vehicle from
gas-line freeze-up.
Q. Does ethanol help reduce air pollution?
A. Yes. There is a significant reduction in both carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions when ethanol is
used. Many cities and states across the nation take advantage
of the environmental benefits of ethanol provides. These
cities include Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
Ethanol is used in virtually every state in the nation,
from Alaska to Florida and from California to New York. For
the United States, ethanol-blended fuels offer the promise of
cleaner air. Ethanol is an abundant new source of energy for
the future that also helps conserve natural petroleum
resources.
Q. What is ethanol?
A. Ethanol is a clean burning, renewable, domestically
produced product made from fermented agricultural products
such as corn.
Ethanol contains oxygen, which helps gasoline burn cleaner
and more efficiently. When used in vehicles, ethanol reduces
all types of emissions including carbon dioxide--a major
contributor to global warming.
Although burning ethanol releases carbon dioxide during its
production and combustion, the crops that ethanol is produced
from absorb that carbon dioxide. So, during ethanol
production, greenhouse gases do not build up in the
envirnoment--they are naturally recycled.
Q. What does research say about ethanol-blended fuels?
A. The American Institute of Chemical Engineers compared
ethanol fuel to straight gasoline. In a published report, the
institute said ethanol was ``very similar in driving
characteristics to straight gasoline, except that pre-
ignition and dieseling (run-on) are noticeably reduced and
acceleration can be improved'' with ethanol.
The report continued, ``Ethanol should be looked at as an
octane enhancer. Mixing it with gasoline in a 9 to 1 ratio
improves the octane rating about three octane numbers.''
There have been many other tests of ethanol during the past
20 years. Those tests found ethanol completely safe to use in
all types of engines.
the clean air choice
Using ethanol-blended fuel is one of the easiest ways you
can help reduce air pollution and our dependence on imported
oil. While many solutions for improving our nation's air
quality are being debated, ethanol is here today. Using
ethanol-blended fuels in your car, outboard motor, lawnmower,
chainsaw, snowmobile and other small engines can make a
difference now.
Mr. Speaker, Congress should pass this bill. We would be making good
sound policy decisions. We would be benefiting America's environment.
We would be helping America's farmers, and we would be addressing our
Nation's energy needs.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a comprehensive
solution that does not force us to choose between clean air and clean
water. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 4011. I will be happy to
share any additional information with them.
____________________