[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 129 (Wednesday, November 15, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10961-S10962]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            HOLD EXPLANATION

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

[[Page S10962]]

of gasoline. That is not five cents. That is .005 cents. The bottom 
line is that EPA is proposing to allow my constituents to breathe more 
toxic emissions and face greater risk of cancer so that oil companies 
can save a fraction of a cent per gallon of gas.
  I am not going to sit back and let EPA just go ahead with this 
rulemaking without complaint. The Office of General Counsel is the 
chief legal advisor to EPA. Mr. Martella was the principal deputy 
general counsel when this rule was proposed. He is now the acting 
general counsel. I am placing a hold on his nomination to send as 
strong a signal to EPA as I can at this time that they need to take 
another look at their own figures. They need to take another look at 
their own regulatory analysis. The regional problems that they 
identified would occur in setting up a national cap-and-trade program 
are real problems and must not be ignored. They need to come up with a 
real solution. Until they do, I will object to any unanimous consent 
agreement to allow Mr. Martella's nomination to come to a vote in the 
Senate.

                          ____________________