[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S307-S309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in morning business on the
pending issue on the floor, and I am glad my friend and colleague from
North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, is on the floor as well. Perhaps we can
do something unprecedented and actually have a dialogue on the issue,
if the Senator is open to that suggestion. After I make some opening
remarks, I will try to request that through the Chair but only if the
Senator is interested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I certainly would welcome that opportunity
and look forward to joining the Senator from Illinois in that dialogue.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota and warn him that
we are getting perilously close to a Senate debate, which almost never
happens. So we want to alert all the news bureaus that this might even
turn into a debate on the floor of the Senate.
[[Page S308]]
This is Senate bill 1. It is the highest priority of the Senate
Republican majority. It is their first bill in the majority. They
decided their first bill would be the Keystone XL Pipeline bill. The
Keystone XL Pipeline is not owned by an American company; it is owned
by a Canadian company, is my understanding, TransCanada. What they are
doing is shipping tar sands from Canada--at least it is proposed here--
into the United States, across the Midwest, to be refined in Texas and
then turned into refined oil products, which could include, of course,
gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and other things.
Yesterday we had two votes on the floor of the Senate about this
pipeline and what it is going to produce, and they were interesting
votes.
In the first vote we said: Well, if we are going to have this
pipeline come into the United States of America and bring Canadian tar
sands to be refined, then whatever oil it produces, the products it
produces, should be used in America to help Americans reduce the cost
of gasoline, to make it cheaper for manufacturing concerns to use their
products.
The Republicans rejected that notion that the oil and products
produced by the Keystone XL Pipeline would be used in America. They
rejected that. I think the vote was 57 to 42. Three or four Democrats
joined them, but all of the Republicans, if I am not mistaken, voted to
say the products coming out of this pipeline wouldn't be used in
America.
Then we offered a second amendment. The second amendment said: Well,
if we are going to build this pipeline--and a lot has been said about
this being the Keystone jobs bill--shouldn't we use American steel, use
American products to build it so that it truly does create jobs in the
steel industry and demand for steel products?
The Republicans rejected that amendment as well. So their idea of a
Keystone jobs pipeline is a pipeline that produces a product that won't
be sold in America and a pipeline that is built with foreign steel.
That is their idea of an American jobs bill?
There is also another aspect of this, on which I have introduced an
amendment. There is a dirty little secret about this Keystone XL
Pipeline which we will get to vote on today. This is what it comes down
to. For the longest time nobody looked at Canadian tar sands as a
viable source of a product that could be refined into gasoline or
diesel fuel. The reason it was never considered viable was the price of
a barrel of oil was too low. They knew that in these tar sands up in
Canada, there was the potential of drawing oil after they went through
a lengthy and expensive process, and they couldn't afford it until the
price of oil started knocking on the door of $80, $90 and $100, and
then Canadian tar sands became viable. They could afford to refine the
product and make some money. And that is what happened.
The Canadian tar sands were developed in Alberta, and they were
shipped to the United States and other places to be refined. In fact,
the first Keystone pipeline, I would argue--although it went by a
different name--actually went to Illinois. It went to Wood River, IL,
to the Conoco refinery, and I have seen it. I have seen the refinery
since it has been receiving these tar sands.
The reason why it is more expensive to use Canadian tar sands to
produce oil products is you have to take out the tar sands. That is a
viscous, nasty product that has to be dealt with with extraordinary
refining capacity, which they developed at Wood River, what is now the
Phillips refinery. I have seen it.
The dirty little secret about this process is that after they have
taken off the worst parts of it--the parts that are not really
economically valuable to most--they have to do something with it, and
it turns out that in this process they generate huge amounts of what is
known as petcoke. Petcoke is the byproduct of Canadian tar sands.
Petcoke is what is left over after they take what is valuable out of
Canadian tar sands. And there is a lot of it.
Proponents of the bill would like to tell you the pipeline won't have
any harmful environmental impact, but a lot of communities across
America know better--Detroit, Chicago, and Long Beach, CA, for three.
These communities have seen what happens when big refineries near their
homes start processing large amounts of Canadian tar sands.
Let me show an illustration. This is from the city of Chicago--the
city of Chicago. This is a Chicago neighborhood. If you didn't know
better, you would assume it is someplace in a remote area. It is not.
This Chicago neighborhood looks an awful lot like Little Rock, AR;
Fargo, North Dakota, except take a look at what is next door to these
little bungalows and homes. This is a petcoke dumpsite.
The British Petroleum refinery receives Canadian tar sands in
Whiting, IN, refines them, and the leftover product--this petcoke
sludge--is shipped over to the city of Chicago, where it is deposited
in piles that are three- and four-stories high. I have seen them.
The residents started noticing these mountain-like piles of petcoke
appearing right over the train tracks from their homes and at a local
baseball field after the Whiting refinery began processing tar sands.
You might imagine that on windy days, giant clouds of petcoke dust
swirl above these storage piles and cover the neighborhoods. I have
seen them. I have visited them. So these working families, when the
wind is blowing in their direction, end up with this petcoke blowing
into their homes, into the lungs of their children.
Often, the dust from these petcoke piles means that people living in
the southeastern part of Chicago are forced to breathe dirty air that
one organization--National Nurses United--says causes severe health
threats. You see, petcoke--this product from Canadian tar sands--
contains heavy metals such as nickel, vanadium, and selenium. Nickel
causes cancer. Chronic exposure to nickel can cause neurological and
developmental defects among children. You can see this nasty petcoke on
the windowsills and buildings around this neighborhood, but you can't
see it in the lungs of the children until it is too late.
The National Institute For Occupational Safety and Health warns that
inhaling nickel-laced dust increases your risk for lung cancer and
fibrosis.
Petcoke dust also contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which
have been linked to cancer as well. And it is not just because the
chemical composition of petcoke is toxic; the dust particles themselves
are extremely dangerous. When you inhale petcoke, that dust can get
trapped in your lungs, causing respiratory problems. Once in the lungs,
these tiny particles can aggravate asthma, leading to premature death
in people with heart or lung disease, and cause heart attacks.
Yesterday I made the point that when I visit schools across my State
to ask how many students in the classroom know someone who has asthma,
without fail, rural or urban schools, half the hands go up. I invite my
colleagues to do the same. So anything we do to aggravate this asthma
threat we face is something we ought to think about very carefully.
Some safety documents even note that long-term exposure to petcoke
might cause damage to the lung, liver, and kidney.
Because of petcoke dust, the city of Chicago has advised residents in
this neighborhood and around it to limit the time they are outdoors. In
addition, Mayor Emanuel and the city are working with residents and
local environmental organizations to limit the amount of petcoke that
can be stored in the city and to require that it be enclosed in
facilities that would protect it from blowing around.
This isn't the first city in America to face this danger from
Canadian tar sands, which will be transported, if built, by the
Keystone XL Pipeline. The city of Detroit, shipping ports near Los
Angeles, they have dealt with petcoke piles too. We need to do more.
Many of these cities have had to act because for years petcoke has
been exempt from regulation under many Federal environmental laws, and
it has not been forced to comply with Federal cleanup standards.
The Federal Government's views on the official side of the ledger--
the regulatory side of the ledger is that these petcoke piles are
benign, not to be worried about. The health information tells us they
are wrong.
That is why I proposed an amendment to end petcoke's exemptions and
require the EPA and Department of Transportation to promulgate rules on
how to store and transport petcoke to protect public and ecological
health. It
[[Page S309]]
closes the environmental loophole for petcoke.
My amendment would require we make these changes before construction
is allowed to begin on this pipeline. It is important because tar sands
transported by the Keystone XL Pipeline--this Canadian company--will
dramatically increase the amount of petcoke produced in this country.
In the year 2013 the United States produced a record amount of 57.5
million metric tons of petcoke.
According to the environmental impact statement for the Keystone XL
Pipeline, the No. 1 priority of the Senate Republican majority, this
pipeline will produce over 15,400 metric tons of petcoke every day.
Under current law all of this new petcoke would continue to be
shipped to local communities for storage and disposal in the same large
open piles we see in this photograph in Chicago. That isn't right. We
in Congress should deal with the acres of petcoke piles that are
already out there before we build a pipeline that will create 15,400
metric tons of it a day. Incidentally, the BP refinery that has created
this mess is generating 6,000 tons a day. More than twice as much will
come out of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the No. 1 Republican Senate
majority issue, S. 1, Keystone XL Pipeline, Canadian company, 35
permanent jobs but 15,400 metric tons of petcoke every single day
somewhere in America.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment to treat petcoke for
what it is. It is a dangerous byproduct that shouldn't be stored in
open-air piles near neighborhoods, ballparks, children, and elderly
people.
End the regulatory loophole for petcoke and establish reasonable
guidelines for handling this dangerous material. This would help ensure
that clean air and clean water is something everyone can enjoy--even if
you happen to have the bad luck of living in a neighborhood near a
petcoke dump site such as this one near the city of Chicago.
I see the Senator from Minnesota is seeking recognition. I ask
unanimous consent for the Senator from North Dakota and myself to enter
into a 3-minute dialogue so we don't hold up my friend from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I know the Senator is a reasonable man and has been
Governor of a State and understands responsibility.
Is it too much to ask that we regulate petcoke so it is not a public
health hazard to the people who happen to live next door to these
dumps?
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to
my esteemed colleague from the State of Illinois.
Of course the answer to the question is that in fact it is a
regulated substance, and it is primarily regulated at the State and
local level.
In the State of Illinois, for example, petcoke would be regulated by
the State of Illinois. What I understand the Senator from Illinois to
be saying is that he is dissatisfied with the way the State of Illinois
has chosen to regulate petcoke.
But in fact the EPA has found that petcoke has a low hazard
potential. According to the Congressional Research Service, most
toxicity analysis of petcoke, as referenced by EPA, finds it has low
health hazard potential in humans, has no observed carcinogenic,
reproductive or developmental effects. In fact, it is a byproduct of
not just oil from the oil sands but also some of the oils from
California, Venezuela, and other places.
So it is a byproduct that in fact is recycled. It is used in products
such as aluminum, steel, paint. It is used to produce electricity.
Here is a case of a product that actually can be and is in fact
recycled. I would argue that what we want to do as we produce energy is
continue to invest in these new technologies that will help us produce
more energy but also do it with better environmental stewardship, which
means we not only work on CCS, carbon capture and storage--which is a
major undertaking in the oil sands right now; and I would be willing to
engage in that discussion as well--but then also work to find uses for
these byproducts in things such as steel and aluminum.
For example, the President last night talked about how the auto
industry is making a resurgence, and he talked about the CAFE
standards. One of the things they are doing in Detroit with new
automobiles is they are using more aluminum in the construction of the
cars to reduce the weight to try to meet those CAFE standards.
So here is a product from the oil sands oil that is actually used in
aluminum to make those vehicles lighter to achieve one of the things
the President talked about in the State of the Union Address last night
as a byproduct from the oil sands oil.
So I appreciate the question and look forward to further dialogue.
Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming for a brief followup. I want to make sure I
understand the Senator's position.
The Senator's position is we should not establish any Federal
standards on the safety of petcoke and leave it up to the States.
He also argues it is not a danger, it is not carcinogenic, and it is
low hazard, in his words. I don't know if the Senator has seen petcoke
neighborhoods that have this blowing into them.
I would just say to the Senator, this notion that somehow petcoke is
going to be some fabulous discovery for new inventions--maybe it will,
but at this point it is being sold to China and they are burning it to
generate electricity. I would just try to imagine for a moment what is
coming out of those smokestacks in China, where sadly the air pollution
is awful at the moment.
I yield the floor, but I don't think it is adequate to say that the
city of Chicago should be regulating this substance. We have a nation
which will be affected by a national pipeline from this Canadian
company. We ought to have a national standard to protect Americans from
the dangers of petcoke. Whether we are talking about Fargo, Little Rock
or Juneau, I wouldn't want to live this close to these petcoke piles.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds for
a simple point of clarification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, the characterizations of petcoke are from
the EPA and from the Congressional Research Service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________