[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.

                          ____________________