<DOC>
[105 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:53127.wais]
S. Hrg. 105-879
USE OF METHYL TERTIARY-BUTYL ETHER (MTBE) IN GASOLINE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 1576
A BILL TO AMEND THE CLEAN AIR ACT TO PERMIT THE EXCLUSIVE APPLICATION
OF CALIFORNIA STATE REGULATIONS REGARDING REFORMULATED GASOLINE IN
CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE STATE
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 1998
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-127 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 16, 1998
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 2
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 1
WITNESSES
Bilbray, Hon. Brian, U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Dunlap, John D., III, chairman, California Air Resources Board,
Sacramento, CA................................................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Durante, Douglas A., executive director, Clean Fuels Development
Coalition, Arlington, VA....................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 93
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from the State of California 7
Correspondence re: MTBE between Senator Feinstein and EPA
officials.................................................. 67-76
Letters and resolutions submitted for the record............. 34-67
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Greenbaum, Daniel S., president, Health Effects Institute,
Cambridge, MA.................................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Jessel, Al, senior fuels specialist, Chevron Products Company,
San Francisco, CA.............................................. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Sullivan, Ned, commissioner, Maine Department of Environmental
Conservation, Augusta, ME...................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 85
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Text of S. 1576, A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the
exclusive application of California State regulations regarding
reformulated gasoline in certain areas within the State........ 30
Articles, Sacramento Bee......................................... 45
Letters:
American Lung Association and National Resources Defense
Council.................................................... 124
Association of California Water Agencies..................... 39
California Energy Commission................................. 38
California Environmental Protection Agency................... 38
California Independent Oil Marketers Association............. 55
California Independent Petroleum Association.................53, 54
Chevron Products Co.......................................... 36
East Bay Municipal Utility District.......................... 50
Environmental Protection Agency..................68, 69, 70, 73, 74
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California.67, 72, 75, 76
Governor Pete Wilson of California........................... 37
Governors' Ethanol Coalition, Oxygenated Fuels Association.104, 112
Lake County Board of Supervisors............................. 52
Los Gatos Village Association................................ 66
Milpitas, CA.................................................34, 58
Mountjoy, Richard, California State Senator.................. 56
Orange County, CA Water District............................. 35
Oxygenated Fuels Association................................. 113
San Diego County Board of Supervisors........................ 49
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Quality District.............. 40
Santa Clara, CA.............................................. 60
Santa Monica, CA............................................. 52
South Lake Tahoe, CA......................................... 42
South Lake Tahoe, CA, Chamber of Commerce.................... 47
South Lake Tahoe, CA, Public Utility District........42, 46, 48, 62
Tosco Corporation............................................ 37
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine................ 76
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board................... 51
Lists:
MTBE Questions and Answers, Oxygenated Fuels Association..... 118
Frequently Asked Questions, Californians United to Save
Boating.................................................... 106
Status of Wells Impacted by MTBE............................. 43
Press releases:
Oxygenated Fuels Association................................119-125
South Lake Tahoe Public Utilty District...................... 44
Resolutions:
Alameda County, CA........................................... 63
Amador County, CA............................................52, 57
Campbell, CA................................................. 57
Gilroy, CA................................................... 64
Los Altos, CA................................................ 65
Los Altos Hills, CA.......................................... 66
Los Angeles Community Development Commission................. 41
Los Gatos, CA................................................ 65
Mesa Consolidated Utility District........................... 64
Milpitas, CA.................................................34, 58
Monte Sereno, CA............................................. 59
Morgan Hill, CA.............................................. 60
Orange County, CA Water District............................. 35
Santa Clara, CA..............................................61, 62
South Lake Tahoe Utility District............................ 63
South Tahoe, CA.............................................. 47
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board................... 52
Statements:
American Bioenergy Association............................... 102
Californians United to Save Boating.......................... 106
Commision of the County of Los Angeles....................... 41
Daschle, Hon. Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of South
Dakota..................................................... 77
Department of Energy, by Robert Gee.......................... 97
Du, Yinghua, Enhanced Formation of Sulfate and Nitrate
Associated with the Use of Oxygenated Fuels................ 77
Environmental Protection Agency, by Margo T. Oge............. 100
National Marine Manufacturers Association.................... 104
Oxygenated Fuels Association................................. 108
Santa Clara Valley Water District............................ 50
Tosco Corporation............................................ 126
USE OF METHYL TERTIARY-BUTYL ETHER (MTBE) IN GASOLINE
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John H. Chafee
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Chafee and Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. I want to welcome all the witnesses and
thank you for taking time to appear here today.
The purpose of today's hearing testimony regarding the use
of methyl tertiary-butyl ether in gasoline. It also includes S.
1576.
I agreed to hold this hearing several months ago in order
to take a closer look at S. 1576, which otherwise may have been
attached to an appropriation bill.
Last December, this committee held a field hearing in
California to examine the presence of MTBE in the Nation's
water supply. MTBE is used throughout the country. If MTBE is a
water quality problem in California, it may well be a problem
elsewhere, so we ought to look at it from a national
perspective.
The use of oxygenates like MTBE increased significantly
after passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. The
Dole-Daschle amendment required that all reformulated gasoline,
RFG--that's the way we will be referring to the reformulated
gasoline--all of that sold in the worst ozone nonattainment
areas contained under the Dole-Daschle bill had to contain at
least 2 percent of oxygenates by weight year-round.
Today, approximately 105 million gallons of Federal RFG is
burned each day in 17 States and in the District of Columbia.
RFG constitutes 32 percent of all gasoline nationwide.
The benefits of the RFG program have been substantial. Over
300 million tons of pollutants have been reduced; benzene
emissions, much more toxic than MTBE, have already been reduced
37 percent here RFG is used.
Phase two RFG, scheduled to begin in the year 2000, will
achieve even greater reductions. The inclusion of oxygenates
has been an important part of its success; however, no program
is without its faults and incapable of being perfected.
California's own experience with its reformulated gasoline
program underscores the weakness of the act. Supporters of S.
1576 argue that 2 percent oxygenate mandate is unnecessarily
prescriptive and achieves no environmental benefit that cannot
be achieved by other gasoline formulas that meet the same
emission standards.
They further argue that eliminating the mandate will reduce
the amount of MTBE used, and, therefore, reduce the chance that
it will make its way in the drinking water supplies.
Some opponents to the bill argue that if the mandate is
lifted it should be done nationwide. Others argue that the
mandate has been very successful and shouldn't be lifted at
all. Others fear the vulcanization of our Nation's gasoline
production system due to patchwork State regulation.
MTBE is not added to gasoline just to meet the 2 percent
mandate. It is also used nationwide because it is an effective
octane enhancer and expands the gasoline supply.
MTBE has been found in drinking water wells and leaking
underground storage tanks from New Hampshire to Florida,
Montana to Alabama, and in my home State of Rhode Island. Much
of this comes from leaking underground storage tanks.
As the RFG program expands and moves into phase two, we
must continue to evaluate its performance, its mandates, its
cost versus benefits, and its overall impact on public health.
I welcome everyone here today and look forward to hearing
what we have to say.
Senator Chafee. Now, Senator Boxer, do you have a statement
you would like to make?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Yes. I would appreciate making that
statement before we have to go vote would be very helpful.
There is a vote, a live quorum. It will be less than 5 minutes.
Senator Chafee. Yes. My only problem--Representative
Bilbray, you've got some votes stacked up?
Mr. Bilbray. Yes. We haven't been called yet, but the time
is coming.
Senator Chafee. All right, why don't you go ahead and
proceed, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I am so pleased to see my senior Senator here, along with
Congressman Bilbray, and commend them both for their work.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank you so much, because last
year you graciously gave me permission to chair a field hearing
in California on the threats posed by MTBE drinking water
contamination, and at that time I was quite alarmed at the
testimony, and immediately after that I wrote to Secretary
Browner and asked that we phase out MTBE. I have yet to really
hear from her directly on that point, but I think we are
getting to that point. If there are other ways that we can meet
the standards--and I think Senator Feinstein and Congressman
Bilbray will point that out in their testimony, as will the
California Air Resources Board--why would we be putting this
carcinogen into the gasoline?
We have to clean the air. We can't step back from that. But
we also have to make sure that the water is pure. This isn't a
question of choosing between one or the other; we have to do
both.
I would ask unanimous consent that my full statement be
placed in the record.
Mr. Chairman, I am so pleased at your growing interest in
this situation. I want to say, again, that we need to do two
things, in my opinion. We need to phase out MTBE, and Secretary
Browner could do that. We also have to clean up the
contamination, and Secretary Browner is doing that in Santa
Monica. I am very pleased that the EPA came in and they headed
up the team and they're working to come up with a plan.
We now have thousands of wells in California that are
contaminated, Mr. Chairman. We need plans to clean up that that
contamination, and then we have to remove and make sure that
MTBE is not added to gasoline.
I want to comment on the legislation before us. I think it
is a first step in the right direction. The reason I prefer
phase-out is because this would require the State to act and
all the States to act, and if States didn't act there could
still be MTBE in gasoline, whereas if it is phased out by the
EPA it will be gone forever. I believe that that is the most
expeditious way to go.
But I will tell my colleagues Senator Feinstein and
Congressman Bilbray that I will be supporting their
legislation. If EPA doesn't act, we have to act. Again, I
commend them from the bottom of my heart because this is
putting MTBE right in this committee where it belongs if we
truly are the committee to preserve the environment.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the State of
California
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this
hearing today to address the serious problems associated with methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) use.
Last year, you graciously allowed me to chair a field hearing in
California on the threats posed by MTBE drinking water contamination.
That hearing revealed that MTBE poses a very serious and pervasive
threat to California's drinking water supplies.
Today's hearing will focus on another important aspect of the MTBE
issue; specifically, whether we can achieve the air quality benefits
associated with reformulated gasoline without adding MTBE to that
gasoline.
Considering these two issues together is critical. If the air
quality benefits associated with reformulated gasoline may be achieved
without using MTBE, then how can we justify putting the public's
drinking water at risk by continuing to use it?
While MTBE has been used in the blending of gasoline since the
1970s, its use increased dramatically following the passage of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In regions of the country with poor
air quality--including Southern California and Sacramento--those
amendments required the use of reformulated gasoline. Under the Act,
reformulated gasoline must contain 2 percent oxygen by weight.
Today, about 70 percent of the gasoline sold in California contains
2 percent oxygen by weight due to this federal Clean Air Act
requirement. While other oxygenates like ethanol may be used to meet
this 2 percent requirement, the ready availability of MTBE and its
chemical properties has made it the oxygenate of choice among oil
companies.
While the oxygenate of choice, MTBE is also classified as a
possible human carcinogen. When MTBE enters groundwater, it moves
through the water very fast and very far. Once there, MTBE resists
degrading in the environment. We know very little about how long it
takes to break down to the point that it becomes harmless.
There has been only very limited study on the public health impact
of drinking water contaminated by MTBE. We do know, however, that even
at very low levels, MTBE causes water to take on the taste and odor of
turpentine--rendering it undrinkable.
That is, it makes water smell and taste so bad that people won't
drink it.
While MTBE drinking water contamination is emerging as a national
issue, it is already a very serious problem in California. MTBE is
leaking from California's underground storage tanks at an alarming
rate. A June 1998 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study revealed
that MTBE is leaking from over 10,000 underground storage tanks in the
state.
The study also indicated that this is a conservative estimate.
MTBE contamination from such tanks has already forced the closure
of drinking water supplies in several areas of California. Santa
Monica, South Lake Tahoe, Glennville and Santa Clara have all closed
drinking water wells due to MTBE contamination. MTBE has also been
discovered in many reservoirs throughout the state.
To address the closure of drinking water supplies in California,
and the threat of more closures in the future, I have urged the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to follow a two part strategy.
First, I have asked EPA to phase out the use of MTBE. The
Administrator of EPA has broad legal authority to protect drinking
water supplies under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Given the
pervasiveness and seriousness of MTBE contamination, I believe the
exercise of this authority to phase out MTBE is justified.
Second, I have asked EPA to use its authority under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and
Superfund (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act) to speed the cleanup of drinking water already
contaminated with MTBE.
In Santa Monica, EPA has embarked on an effort to do just that.
There, EPA has exercised this authority to identify the parties
responsible for the contamination at the most severely impacted site.
EPA is now in the process of crafting a settlement which would
establish the actions those parties must take to cleanup the site.
I support Senator Feinstein's efforts to address the issue of MTBE
use in California. S. 1576 would waive the Clean Air Act oxygenate
requirement so long as a state could achieve equal or better emission
reductions without using an oxygenate like MTBE.
Under the bill, oil companies would still be free to use MTBE--
unless it is ultimately phased out by the State of California. By
lifting the oxygenate requirement, however, S. 1576 would make a state
phase out possible. In that way, S. 1576 would be a very positive step
forward.
In this hearing today, California's Air Resources Board (CARB) will
testify California can meet emission standards without using oxygenates
like MTBE. If California could meet these standards without using MTBE,
then how can we justify putting our public water supply at risk by
continuing to use it?
What grounds, then, are there for taking that risk?
I thank my colleague Senator Einstein for her work on this piece of
the MTBE puzzle. I look forward to continuing to work with her, this
Committee and the Administration to phase out the use of MTBE, and to
speed the cleanup of MTBE contaminated drinking water in California and
elsewhere in the nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Now, Senator, is it okay if he goes first? What's your
situation? Both you and I have to go over and vote in pretty
short order.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. It is your pleasure. It is your
committee.
Senator Chafee. Well, you will be here for a while? Can you
come back?
Senator Feinstein. Yes. I would like to lay out a case,
because I think I have a substantial case and good
documentation to make in support of this bill and to answer
some of the questions.
Senator Chafee. All right. Why don't we let the
representative go. He's got a bunch of stack votes. And you and
I will go up, and when we come back you will have all the time
you want.
All right, Mr. Representative, why don't you go ahead, Mr.
Bilbray?
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
be able to address you at this hearing. Frankly, I want to
thank Senator Feinstein for her strong bipartisan leadership on
this issue.
The California support for our bill is bipartisan. In fact,
Mr. Chairman, let me point out that it is almost unanimous--49
Members of the California delegation of the House have signed
support and are sponsors of this bill. As you stated, you have
what appears to be unanimous support from the Senate side of
the California delegation.
Let me just remind the committee that I am bringing this
bill with the Senator not just as a Member of Congress, but as
an ex-member of the Air Resources Board and the Air Pollution
Districts of California. My interest here is in clean air and
the safe environment.
This bill is specific to California. It builds on the
tradition of the original Clean Air Act and the amended Clean
Air Act, which continually have said that California has been
so unique in its progressive attitude towards clean fuel
strategies that California will be treated separate from the
rest, so that the Federal Government doesn't get involved or
obstruct its progressive approaches to clean air strategies,
especially as it applies to the clean fuel approach.
Now, my bill says that we can approach California's clean
fuel program with the flexibility that Californians recognize
as being outcome-based. It does not mandate the use, nor does
it ban the use of any specific additive. It allows the
flexibility for scientists to be able to address this issue
based on good science and what's good for the environment.
It does not mandate any particular ingredients, and thus
you don't reach the Catch-22 that we've run into with the MTBE
issue, as the Senator from California has pointed out.
My bill says that we return back to the concept of sound
science and maintain sound science, and with the development of
the reformulated gasoline program, and especially as it applies
to California.
California has always set its bar higher than anyone else
in the world. We have the most strict air pollution regulations
of any community anywhere in the world, second to none. To
those who have suggested that this bill would somehow encourage
California to pollute its air, I remind them again and I
challenge them that California is the cleanest, has the highest
standards and has the cleanest strategies.
To further underscore the bipartisan commitment to this,
I'd like to point out at this time and introduce the May 26,
1998 letter of support to the Council on Environmental Quality,
which supports this bill. And, at the same time, I would ask
that we include the letters of support from the California air
pollution control officers. Every major air pollution district
in California supports this bill because it is good for the
environment.
Now, I recognize that some have expressed concern about the
issue of ``opening up the Act'' for other possible purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I know you have that concern, I also have that
concern, and I feel very, very comfortable with the fact that
there are people such as yourself who are in positions of
influence that want to make sure that the act is not abused.
This bill is completely compartmentalized based on the
original and the existing amended Clean Air Acts, to identify
California's clean fuel strategies as being separate and apart
from the national. It has always been that way, and this bill
builds on that, and that is why it keeps any potential broad
opening minimized, because we're specifically talking about one
small section of the Act that only applies to California.
Californians have proved in the past, and they will
continue to prove, that through the use of science they were
able to build a better mousetrap than anyone else has seen
before. With this bill, we can build on that and allow
California to not only develop a cleaner air proposal, but to
also address issues like the MTBE concerns.
Let's talk about MTBE. Let's be up front; there is no
ingredient of gasoline that belongs in our drinking water. That
much is clear. We need to talk about stopping any leaks and any
contaminants that may be going into our drinking water. The
tank leaks need to be addressed.
I just want to point out to the committee that what this
bill does is eliminate a mandate, and replaces it with
flexibility based on scientific outcome. That, in turn, means
that the mandate is now not being used to block our ability to
address an environmental concern that is not only one of
drinking water, but also clean air. I remind you that in
California cleaner burning gasoline has one-half of the toxic
emissions of the Federal formula. I repeat--one-half as much
toxic pollutants are allowed in the California formula than the
Federal formula.
We are second to none and have been very successful.
Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just say this: I appreciate
the opportunity to highlight this legislation, to highlight the
success California has made working, based on the Clean Air Act
of not only 1974, but also 1990, and ask that the Federal
Government continue to be a partner with California in moving
this agenda forward.
What really matters is not what we do here or what we say
here, but how that affects the quality of life and the
environment in California. We have a chance here to do the
right thing. The Bilbray-Feinstein bill is common sense, good
science, and it should be used as an example of why we need to
be willing to do better whenever possible.
I appreciate the chance to testify today and I remain
available to answer any questions. Mr. Chairman, I really want
to thank you for your attention to this issue. I have been very
impressed with your leadership, and I appreciate it.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Bilbray.
Senator Chafee. I have got to go over and vote now, and
we'll adjourn for that. If you want to stay, you can, but I
think you've got some votes, yourself. I will be coming back,
and I presume Senator Boxer likewise will be coming back.
Mr. Bilbray. I will try to return immediately, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. I don't want to guarantee that we will have
questions for you. We've got your testimony here and we've got
other witnesses, so----
Senator Boxer. I don't have any questions. Congressman,
thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much. And I don't have
questions either.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. We'll put those letters in the record.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Chafee. We'll take a recess now.
[Recess.]
Senator Chafee. All right. If we could have everyone's
attention, please, I want to apologize to Senator Feinstein for
taking so long, and Representative Bilbray. We've got an
endangered species matter that we reported out from our
committee, and we've been working on that and whether we can
achieve passage on that.
Now, Senator Feinstein, if you would like to proceed, we
welcome you before the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, very much. I very
much appreciate your holding this hearing. I know your
concerns. I'm very pleased to work with Congressman Bilbray.
I'm delighted he can be here. The chairman of the California
Air Resources Board is here.
I'm submitting into the record four packets of material in
support of this legislation. It begins with the governor of the
State of California; the Air Resources Board; the California
Environmental Protection Agency; all the California water
agencies; the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District; the City of South Lake Tahoe; San Diego County Board
of Supervisors; the East Bay Municipal Utilities District; the
Santa Clara Valley Water District; the Ventura County Air
Pollution Control Board; Amador County; the City of Santa
Monica, which has 75 percent of its groundwater polluted; the
county of Lake County; the California Independent Petroleum
Association; and on and on.
Senator Chafee. How does the American Legion stand on this?
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. I think they'd be with us.
Essentially, what this bill asks for is a waiver of the
Federal 2 percent oxygenate requirement. It would provide, only
if a State's reformulated gasoline rules achieve equal or
greater emissions reductions than Federal regulations, a
State's rule will take precedence.
This bill would apply only to States which have received
waivers under section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
California is the only State currently eligible for this
waiver, and it allows us to set our own fuel standards. The
other 49 States do not set their own fuel specifications.
That's why it makes sense to give this waiver. I hope to
make a case to show you that there are alternatives and that we
can continue to make the emissions reductions.
The current Federal Clean Air Act requires that
reformulated gasoline contain this minimum 2 percent. Our bill
would give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility, or even
eliminate the use of MTBE, as long as the equivalent or greater
emissions reductions are achieved.
In 1991, a year after the 1990 amendments to the Federal
Clean Air Act that imposed the oxygenate requirements, the
California Air Resources Board established its own rules, which
became effective in 1996, for reformulated gasoline when the
Air Resources Board determined that Federal rules would not
provide sufficient clean air benefits to the State to meet the
Federal ozone standards.
California's clean-burning gasoline, as I'm sure my
colleague has said, provides about twice the air quality
benefits of Federal reformulated gasoline. That's according to
the California Air Resources Board.
In 1994, the Air Resources Board approved use of a
predictive model, which is a performance-based program that
allows refiners to use innovative fuel formulations to meet
clean air requirements. The predictive model requires gasoline
to meet State standards which provide twice the clean air
benefits required by the Federal Government.
With this model, refiners can make cleaner-burning gasoline
with 1 percent oxygen or no oxygen at all.
Incredibly, the Federal law prevents refiners from selling
the northern California gasoline with reduced or no oxygenates
in southern California, even though the northern California
gasoline provides twice the clean air benefits required by the
Federal Government.
Mr. Dunlap has told me that California's reformulated
gasoline requirements have reduced air pollutants by 30 percent
and ozone precursors--hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides--by 17
percent. Ozone has been reduced by 10 percent in northern
California and 18 percent in Los Angeles. Benzene levels have
dropped more than 50 percent.
Our program has had the effect of removing 3.5 million cars
out of the 24 million on the road in terms of reduced
emissions.
Now, let me speak for a moment. Can gasoline companies make
clean air gas without MTBE? Chevron Products Company wrote to
me on September 11, 1998--and I'd ask that this letter be
included in the record--and said, ``We believe it is possible
to replace gasoline which currently contains MTBE with a
combination of ethanol-blended gasoline and non-oxygenated
gasolines while maintaining the clean air benefits that the
California cleaner burning gasoline program has provided.''
I asked Chevron, ``Can California gasoline be made without
MTBE but preserve emission benefits?'' Chevron responded as
follows. ``Yes, California allows the sale of a wide variety of
gasoline formulations without oxygenates, as long as they
produce the same emissions reductions as a carefully-designed
base gasoline. As discussed above, this has been done at
Chevron's Richmond refinery.''
Formulations that do not show equivalent or better
emissions performance are not allowed. This is a pure
performance standard. Oxygen is not required, per se. Were
there no Federal oxygen requirement, much but not all of a
refiner's CBG could be made without MTBE by using ethanol or no
oxygenate at all. However, not all MTBE can be eliminated year-
round without some increased flexibility in California
regulations.
I believe Mr. Dunlap will testify that the board is
prepared to do that. This can be accomplished without
jeopardizing the emissions benefits.
Senator Chafee. We've got as a witness Mr. Jessel, who is
the senior fuels specialist of Chevron.
Senator Feinstein. Excellent. Well then let me skip the
rest of that.
Senator Chafee. All right.
Senator Feinstein. Now let me talk for a moment about the
problem. The problem is drinking water contamination. It is
wrong to clean the air by polluting the groundwater.
Contamination of California's drinking water by MTBE is
becoming a serious problem. In higher concentrations, it smells
like turpentine and it tastes like paint thinner. It can make
drinking water simply undrinkable.
MTBE is a highly-soluble organic compound. It moves quickly
through soil and gravel. It poses a more rapid threat to water
supplies than other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur.
It is easily traced, but it is difficult and expensive to clean
up.
The Association of California Water Agencies estimates that
it would cost as much as $1 million per well to install
treatment technology to remove MTBE from drinking water.
Without these funds, the only option is to shut down wells.
A June 11 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study
reached five important conclusions.
The first is that MTBE today is a frequent and widespread
contaminant in shallow groundwater throughout California. There
are presently 32,400 leaking underground fuel tanks recognized
in the State, in 13,000 of which hydrocarbons are known to have
impacted the groundwater. The minimum estimate of the number of
MTBE-impacted sites in California is greater than 10,000.
Two, MTBE plumes are more mobile than benzene plumes.
Therefore, MTBE moves quickly to infiltrate groundwater.
Three, the primary attenuation mechanism for MTBE is
dispersion.
Four, ``MTBE has the potential to impact regional
groundwater resources and may present a cumulative
contamination hazard.'' That's a quote.
Five, we have identified two major areas of uncertainty in
our results. First, presently available MTBE data are limited.
Second, the issue of recalcitrants of MTBE has not been
resolved.
Senator Chafee. Senator, I wonder if perhaps you might
summarize the balance of your statement as you go along.
Senator Feinstein. I will.
Senator Chafee. We do have quite a few witnesses.
Senator Feinstein. Let me just tell you what the major
contamination problems are.
Santa Monica has lost 75 percent of its groundwater. South
Lake Tahoe, the Santa Clara Valley, the Great Water Company,
and Sacramento, the Fruitridge Vista Water Company--drinking
wells in each of these cities have been shut down because of
MTBE contamination.
Now, Californians are more dependent on groundwater as a
source of drinking water than most Americans. Of California's
population, 69 percent of the population relies on groundwater
as their source of drinking, while for the U.S. population at
large, 53 percent depends on groundwater. So we have just about
20 million people--well, more than that--dependent on this
groundwater which is rapidly becoming polluted.
We will submit to you the reservoirs that are now being
polluted throughout the State.
What is the solution? First, California is the only State
that has this waiver. We have stricter standards. The ARB will
tell you we can meet the emissions standards of Federal law
without using MTBE. The groundwater is being polluted. This is
unacceptable.
Therefore, we ask this committee to send out for a vote
before the full Senate this bill and hold us to our word,
because I believe that the California Air Resources Board is on
this in a very comprehensive and substantial way, and you will
see no deleterious effects on our air if this bill.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Thank you. I've just got a couple of
questions for both of you.
What's the status of this in the House, Mr. Bilbray?
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, we have held a hearing on the
item on Earth Day. Basically, the interest was to examine the
bill at this hearing and see if there can be a consensus
between the two chairmen of the subcommittees and the full
committees to consider if we can move this bill.
Senator Chafee. Okay. Now, as I get the problem, whereas
MTBE does a lot of good things, as Senator Feinstein
delineated, what comes of it when it gets in the drinking
water--and does it get into the drinking water primarily
through the leaking underground storage tanks, or is it when it
is burned, when it comes out of an automobile it goes in the
air and then comes down in the water? Is it solely through the
leaking underground storage tanks?
Senator Feinstein. That's one. In South Lake Tahoe they
would tell you it is from two-stroke engines, jet skis, which
have permeated now that groundwater. They are in the process of
going through the necessary protocols to shut down two-stroke
jet skis. In essence----
Senator Chafee. That would be a step ahead, by itself, I
think.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. It is in reservoirs now, and I
would--from that comes also----
Senator Chafee. From surface uses----
Senator Feinstein. From some surface use, and also the
prime source, I think it would be fair to say, are the
underground storage tanks.
Mr. Bilbray. Noncombusted residue is what it is. It's a
blow-by of the two-cycle engine. It ends up being the leaking
situation. Once burned, it is not a problem.
Senator Chafee. Principally from the leaking?
Senator Feinstein. That's right.
Senator Chafee. Yes. Well, I think you make a very good
case. We look forward to hearing the witnesses that follow you.
California obviously has really tacked this situation, tackled
the whole clean air situation. As I said many times, as
California goes, so goes the Nation, what you do in taking the
lead.
I suppose we'll get into problems of--in my opening
statement I talked about a patchwork system across the Nation,
different States having different requirements. And this
would--this legislation would only apply to California, remove
the 2 percent oxygenate additive, whereas the other States
would continue with that. So I don't know what that does as a
refinery problem. That's a problem we'll ask Mr. Jessel.
It was interesting, what you had to say. I guess it was
you, Mr. Bilbray, that said your production facilities in
northern California should be able to come down to southern
California.
Mr. Bilbray. The Senator actually pointed it out, but I
made the original motion, Mr. Chairman, on the Air Resources
Board to implement the clean air reformulated gasoline
regulation back when I was on the board.
But you talk about patchwork? We have two different sets of
rules for one State right now. We're trying to make that into a
common sense standard. And that is what we're asking to do with
this bill.
California, again, has always been separate in this regard
from the other 49 States under the Clean Air Act. I ask you, in
closing, just to remember one thing that we said back in the
1960's and the 1970's on environmental issues. With this bill,
we want to make sure that this is not going--this bill will not
eliminate all our problems or be a panacea, but it will be part
of the solution and move us in the right direction.
The old term we used in the 1960's and the 1970's--and you
probably remember the environmental community saying this--if
you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. We
want the Federal regulations to stop being part of the problem
and modify them and make them part of the solution for
addressing this issue, and with your help we'll be able to do
that.
Senator Chafee. Okay. Do either of you have anything
further you would like to add?
Senator Feinstein. No, but I'd like to provide this
material for the committee's record.
Senator Chafee. Right. And, Mr. Bilbray, you asked for
something to be put in the record, as well.
Mr. Bilbray. We'll have the letters from the Air Resources
Board and from the Air Pollution Professionals of California
and from the health associations that support this bill.
Senator Chafee. Okay. Fine. Thank you both very much for
testifying.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. We appreciate it.
And now, Mr. Sullivan, commercial of the Maine Department
of Environmental Conservation, and Mr. Daniel Greenbaum,
president, Health Effects Institute of Cambridge--if you
gentlemen will please come forward.
I can say to Mr. Sullivan that I spend my summers in Maine.
My father was born in Maine, so I've always had a deep
attachment to the State of Maine.
Now, Mr. Dunlap, why don't you proceed?
STATEMENT OF JOHN D. DUNLAP III, CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dunlap. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Chafee. You're much younger looking than I
expected. This is such an all-pervasive organization there, the
California Air Resources Board.
Mr. Dunlap. Well, I've been before you before and I haven't
aged much. You've been kind. I'm at least grateful for that.
Senator Chafee. At least it hasn't been an aging process
for you. All right. Go to it.
Mr. Dunlap. Okay. It is a pleasure to be with you today.
Both of our Congressional representatives did a terrific
job at outlining some of the benefits, so I'll do my best not
to be redundant--the benefits, that is, of the cleaner-burning
gasoline program.
My administration supports S. 1576, which we believe would
enable California's cleaner-burning gasoline program to reduce
its dependence on MTBE and other oxygenated gasoline additives.
As the only State--and it has been said several times--with its
own gasoline program, we are in a unique legal and
institutional position to be a proving ground for what can be
accomplished nationally with a performance-based environmental
program.
S. 1576 represents an opportunity for the entire Nation to
observe the outcome of California's trailblazing efforts. We
also believe this bill can help California respond rationally
and effectively to public concern over MTBE. If we are
successful, the Federal Government would benefit from our
experience with a market-oriented and performance-based
approach. For these reasons, it is our belief that Congress
ought to quickly pass S. 1576 and Representative Bilbray's H.R.
630, rather than waiting many months or even years to craft
controversial national changes to the Federal oxygenate
program.
I will highlight a couple points about the performance.
We're very proud of our cleaner-burning gasoline program.
Senator Feinstein indicated we saw very large improvements in
air quality the first year of its implementation--10 percent
improvement in smog levels in Los Angeles and about 12 percent
in Sacramento. That is the largest improvement. It's the
largest single control measure we've ever had in California's
50-year history of controlling air pollution, so it has been a
terrific success.
And yet, this success has been overshadowed by public
concern over the use of MTBE the meet Federal requirements for
the addition of oxygen in gasoline.
In 1990, the Congress approved an amendment to the Federal
Clean Air Act mandating the use of gasoline containing 2
percent oxygen by weight in regions classified as being severe
or nonattainment for the Federal ozone standard, and to remain
in compliance with this Federal requirement, about 70 percent
of the gasoline used in California during a given year must
contain this 2 percent oxygen by weight year round with no
exceptions. This includes gasoline used in the greater L.A.
area, Ventura County, San Diego, and in the Sacramento area.
In 1991, the year following the Federal Clean Air Act
amendments, our board established its own cleaner-burning
gasoline specs. We went ahead with these specifications because
we determined that Federal reformulated gasoline would not
provide sufficient clean air benefits to enable California to
attain the Federal ozone standard.
As has been said, California's gasoline provides about
twice the air quality benefits of Federal reformulated
gasoline.
The Board has always viewed gasoline oxygenates such as
MTBE as an important option that should be available to
refiners for making cleaner-burning petroleum products. At the
same time, it is possible to make commercial quantities of
cleaner-burning gasoline without mandated levels of oxygenated
additives.
We believe strongly that Federal and State law should set
content-neutral performance standards for refiners to meet,
rather than prescribing oxygen levels.
However, given the fact that most California gasoline was
subject to the Federal oxygen requirements, the Board felt, in
1991, compelled to include the Federal oxygen requirements in
its cleaner-burning gasoline specs. Thus, California was
committed to the use of oxygenated gasoline in order to remain
consistent with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.
The story does not end there, however, in 1994, California
added flexibility to its gasoline regulations by approving the
use of a predictive model. This model was developed by our
Board with data from emissions tests involving a large number
of motor vehicles and fuels, and it predicts emissions from
various gasoline formulations.
If a refiner wishes to produce gasoline that varies from
the ARB fuel specs, including the oxygen requirement, it can do
so provided that the predictive model indicates there will be
no increase in emissions. The predictive model changed our
cleaner-burning gasoline program from a command and control
program based upon rigid fuel specs to a performance-based
program in which refiners concentrate on meeting emission
standards.
Because of this model, refiners have incentives to develop
innovative fuel formulations that offer advantages over
conventional formulations.
Refiners in northern California routinely use the
predictive model to reduce the oxygen content of their
gasoline. One refiner is now producing and selling a non-
oxygenated fuel. This is possible because the Federal oxygen
requirement does not apply to most northern California
gasoline.
Senator Chafee. That is because they're in attainment?
Mr. Dunlap. Correct. Not subject to the Federal
requirement.
Incredibly, the Federal oxygen rule prevents those refiners
from selling the northern California gasoline with reduced or
no oxygenates in southern California, even though the northern
California gasoline provides twice the clean air benefits
required by the Federal Government.
The Federal oxygen rule severely limits the flexibility
that our Board has been able to give refiners of California
gasoline. As I pointed out, our predictive model still requires
California gasoline to meet our State standards, which provides
twice, as I said, the clean air benefits. The Federal oxygen
rule may serve a purpose in the other 49 States which do not
have their own fuel specs, but in California, a State in which
we have our own comprehensive fuel standards, the Federal
oxygen rule serves no useful purpose.
As has been stated--and you've said so, yourself, Mr.
Chairman--there is growing public concern over MTBE. No Federal
or State law mandates the use of MTBE. The refiners have chosen
to use MTBE in virtually all California gasoline because it
represents the most practical way, by far, to meet the
oxygenate requirement. Unfortunately, MTBE releases have
severely impacted drinking water supplies, as has been stated.
The concern is driven, in part, because the Federal oxygen
rule gives refiners no viable alternative to the widespread use
of MTBE in California. This has led many Californians to
wrongly perceive that cleaner-burning gasoline represents a
trade-off between clean air and clean water.
Senator Chafee. I'm getting a little mixed up here. And I
don't claim to be an expert in all of this. But couldn't they
use ethanol instead of MTBE?
Mr. Dunlap. Yes, and some have.
Senator Chafee. In other words, it seems to me the real end
of the piece is what happens to the MTBE if it gets out of a
tank or from a two-cycle engine, or whatever it might be. And
if that's all true, why wouldn't--is it less expensive? Why
don't they try ethanol?
Mr. Dunlap. As I mentioned, some have. I'll let my
colleague go into those factors. But economics, availability,
and the like--I've been told that if ethanol were to be used
exclusively in the California fuel, all of it produced
domestically wouldn't last a quarter to meet the California
demand. My colleague, again, from Chevron can talk to some of
that.
Senator Chafee. Okay.
Mr. Dunlap. I am not suggesting that S. 1576 will prevent
MTBE releases into water. California's underground tank upgrade
program is the primary measure for protecting water from
contamination from all fuel components.
I'm also not suggesting that S. 1576 represents a ban or
restriction on the use of MTBE. Here, again, let me emphasize
that the bill is content neutral. MTBE should remain an option
for all refiners. But the key word here is ``option.'' There is
no inherent reason why cleaner-burning gasoline must have 2
percent MTBE or any oxygenate by weight. California refiners
have shown that it is possible to make cleaner-burning gasoline
with 1 percent oxygen, and even no oxygen at all.
By exempting California from the Federal oxygen rule, S.
1576 would give refiners the option of reducing the MTBE
content of their gas throughout California and the bill would
give refiners more options for using other oxygenates such as
ethanol.
Senator Chafee. I would ask, Mr. Dunlap--we're trying to
give everybody equal time here, so if you could summarize your
last couple of pages.
Mr. Dunlap. I will conclude with this. As long as
California is subject to the Federal oxygen rule, our ability
to respond to MTBE concerns will be severely limited. The
burden of addressing the growing unease over MTBE in California
and other States will come full force to the Nation's capital,
we believe, and it will remain here in the Nation's capital.
So it is our belief that we think these two bills will
present an opportunity not just for California but for the
entire country.
So I thank you for your attention. I would be happy to
answer any questions at the right time.
Senator Chafee. All right. We'll save the questions until
the panel is completed.
Mr. Sullivan? And, if you could keep your remarks to around
5 minutes--when the red light comes on, that's time to wind it
up if you would.
STATEMENT OF NED SULLIVAN, COMMISSIONER, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, AUGUSTA, MAINE
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak. I'm Ned Sullivan, Commissioner of the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and I'm pleased
to come before you to share Maine's experience with Federal
reformulated gasoline and with the oxygenate MTBE.
Governor Angus King sends his regards to welcome you to the
State any time, and he says he's working on the visual line
from bridges, which I think is an issue of interest.
Senator Chafee. That's very encouraging. I won't go into
that now.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. Go ahead, Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. He wanted me to let you know that he's hard
at work on this matter.
Senator Chafee. Good. I appropriate that. I'll tell people
what that is.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. If you're designing a bridge, you want the
bridge so that the railing on the side of the bridge doesn't
just come right across your line of vision so you can't see the
beautiful bay, river, whatever is out there. And they'll always
tell you, ``Federal rules prevent it.'' Baloney. You can get
that railing so it doesn't come right where your eyesight is.
They're building a new bridge in Maine up close to where we
go, and I just spoke to the governor about having the railing
so that you can see the water. The fact he remembered it
greatly impressed me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, the Clean Air Act amendments of
1990 require that reformulated gas be sold in the Nation's
worst ozone nonattainment areas. The law also allows a State
with lesser ozone problems, like Maine, to opt into the
program. However, once in the program, only the Federal fuel
may be sold in that area.
Since 1995, seven counties in southern Maine have been in
the Federal reform program. I would mention that Governor
McKernan, who initiated Maine's participation in the program,
asked that it be sold State-wide, but was told by EPA that it
could only be sold in areas that are in nonattainment with the
ozone standard, so we have a fractured State in terms of our
fuel supply.
The RFG blend that is sold in Maine is the same as that
sold in 11 northeastern States and the District of Columbia. As
required by Federal law, it must contain at least 2 percent
oxygen, accomplished in the northeast primarily, if not
exclusively, by adding the oxygenate MTBE.
The RFT program accounts for nearly one-third of the
hydrocarbon emission reductions that Maine's southern counties
are required to achieve under the Clean Air Act.
The good news is that air quality in Maine, as in
California and other parts of the country, has improved since
the program began. We have seen a steady downward trend in the
number of days that the monitored ozone levels exceed the
Federal 1-hour standard, despite a slight increase in average
temperature which we've experienced in the State, which would
otherwise be expected to trigger additional exceedences of that
standard. There is a chart in the back of my testimony that
demonstrates that.
The improved air quality has been recognized by EPA, which
has revoked the 1-hour standard in four of the counties,
effectively putting them into attainment for that standard.
In addition, we have monitored a reduction in the toxic
compounds in our ambient air. As you know, Mr. Chairman, motor
vehicles are estimated to account for roughly 50 percent of all
cancers associated with exposure to air toxics; however, RFG
burns more cleanly and more completely destroys toxic
components of gasoline. But, more to the point today, MTBE
replaces some of the cancer-causing benzene in conventional
gasoline.
The first round of monitoring since RFG has been in use in
Maine has shown more than a 20 percent reduction in benzene
levels in ambient air, and there is a chart in my statement
that demonstrates that.
So we are pleased with the progress. I also have--and I
will provide you a copy of this--a recent report issued by
NESCAUM on relative cancer risk of reformulated gasoline and
conventional gasoline sold in the northeast, which shows a
roughly 12 percent reduction in cancer-related risk comparing
RFG with conventional gasoline.
Despite these benefits, Maine people have been concerned
about RFG use since the program was implemented due to concerns
about health risk, cost, and vehicle performance.
In every State legislative session since January 1995, a
bill has been introduced to terminate Maine's RFG program. In
every instance, the primary argument against the program has
been the health and environmental risk that some associated
with MTBE.
The resulting debates and calls for additional studies have
enabled the program to continue as a key component of Maine's
clean air plan, albeit it with shaky support.
We have established a health-based standard for MTBE in
drinking water of 35 parts per billion. That was affirmed by
the Maine State Legislature last year.
Maine has been monitoring groundwater for some time and has
found MTBE in our groundwater since 1985, primarily in
association with leaking underground storage tanks. We have
almost completed our underground storage tank replacement
program. We've replaced some 30,000 underground tanks, or 98
percent of them. So we're doing what is necessary to address
that aspect of the problem.
But public concern about MTBE in groundwater heightened
sharply this past spring as a string of contamination events
focused even more attention on the potential for MTBE
contamination of Maine's groundwater. We had three specific
incidents--one associated with a new state-of-the-art gas
station which had only been pumping gas for a few months,
roughly 1,000 feet from two public water supplies that served
some 3,000 customers in a growing community in southern Maine,
North Wyndham.
MTBE was detected at trace levels in those wells, but at
very high levels at the gas station--some 7,000 parts per
billion--and at almost 500 parts per billion at a monitoring
well just a couple of hundred feet away from the public water
supply.
We've managed to keep the levels down at that public water
supply, but the looming threat just up-gradient from there has
really sent strong waves of concern throughout that community
and the State.
Similarly, in May private wells were contaminated by MTBE
in an adjoining town. Some 24 wells have detectable MTBE, 11 of
those above our action level.
Senator Chafee. I would ask that you summarize the last
couple of pages if you would, Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. I will.
We believe that a car accident resulting in a small
quantity of gasoline spilled caused that, as well as
contamination of an elementary school well in another community
in a completely different part of the State.
So what we find ourself with, Mr. Chairman, is a bit of a
conundrum. We are very pleased with the air quality benefits of
reformulated gas, but we are concerned about the potential risk
to groundwater.
Governor King has ordered testing of 1,000 wells in the
State and all public drinking water supplies to determine the
extent of the contamination problem. The results of that study
will be available at the end of this month.
Furthermore, he has directed us to look at alternatives.
But, as we've spoken to the refiners, they've indicated that
the fact that they have to include MTBE or other oxygenates in
the fuel that they provide to virtually the entire northeast
limits their ability to go to alternative fuels, like a low RVP
fuel that could achieve the same ozone-related benefits. This
is an obstacle to their meeting what may be a market demand in
Maine, a strong market demand for a clean-burning fuel that
doesn't contain MTBE.
So I would urge you and the committee to consider
legislation that would eliminate the mandate for an oxygenate
requirement in fuel throughout the country, or in areas that
move forward with an alternative that achieves the necessary
air pollution goals that we have in Maine and that are mandated
by the Federal Clean Air Act.
Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
Senator Chafee. What we'll do is we'll hear from Mr.
Greenbaum and then have questions for the panel.
Mr. Greenbaum?
STATEMENT OF DANIEL S. GREENBAUM, PRESIDENT, HEALTH EFFECTS
INSTITUTE, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Greenbaum. Mr. Chairman, good afternoon and thank you
for the opportunity to testify. I'm honored to have the chance
to appear in front of you, having spent 6 years as the
Commissioner of Environmental Protection in the neighboring
State of Massachusetts, and having lived to tell about it, I'm
well aware of your dedication to environmental protection,
probably most notably through your regular reminders to me
during my tenure that the vast majority of the pollutants
finding their way into the Blackstone River and into
Narragansett Bay were not from Rhode Island but were from
Massachusetts, and our trying to do something about that.
But I am pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity to
present the views of the Health Effects Institute on the health
effects of MTBE in gasoline.
For the record, HEI is an independent, not-for-profit
research institute funded jointly by USEPA and the motor
vehicle industry to provide high-quality and impartial science
on the health effects of air pollution.
We have been engaged in scientific assessment and research
on MTBE for several years, and in 1995 and 1996, at the request
of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
of the EPA administrator, we convened an expert panel to review
all existing science on exposure to and health effects from the
addition of MTBE and ethanol to gasoline.
In April 1996, this panel, which consisted of experts in
toxicology, epidemiology, cancer, reproduction and development,
and exposure, and was chaired by the former director of the
National Cancer Institute, Dr. Arthur Upton, issued the report
of its 9-month review of over 300 individual studies of MTBE
and ethanol.
The study found that there were some potential short-term
and cancer health effects for MTBE, but that there were not
likely to be any health effects from ethanol at the levels to
which most people would be exposed. When the committee then
placed the MTBE effects in the context of the effects of
exposure that we know about from gasoline, itself, without
oxygenates, they concluded three things.
First, that the potential health effects of exposure to
conventional gasoline without oxygenates includes many effects
that are similar to those that could result from exposure to
gasoline with oxygenates.
Second, that adding oxygenates to gasoline can reduce the
emission of some pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and
benzene from motor vehicles, while at the same time increasing
some exposure to aldehydes and to the oxygenates, themselves.
Finally, looking at the overall situation, they concluded
that adding oxygenates is unlikely to substantially increase
the health risks associated with fuel used in motor vehicles;
hence, the potential health risks of oxygenates are not
sufficient to warrant an immediate reduction in oxygenate use
at this time.
Now, for the committee's benefit, I have attached to my
testimony a copy of the report's executive summary and a list
of the members of the committee, and we have also provided a
full copy of the report to your staff.
Following the release of this report, research and analysis
continued on several fronts. In June 1997 the Office of Science
and Technology Policy issued its inter-agency report, the
results of a more comprehensive review of oxygenates, and this
review, which incorporated the HEI findings, drew similar
conclusions to those of HEI.
It also conducted a preliminary quantitative risk
assessment for MTBE based on animal cancer data and concluded
that ``the estimated upper-bound cancer risks for MTBE are
similar to or slightly less than those for fully-vaporized
conventional gasoline, substantially less than that for
benzene, a minor constituent in gasoline that is classified as
a known human carcinogen, and more than 100 times less than
that for one-three butadiene, a carcinogenic emission product
of fuel combustion.''
Earlier this year another group, the World Health
Organization, issued its own environmental health criteria for
MTBE. They, too, reached many conclusions similar to those of
HEI and the inter-agency report.
Now, that's not to say, having done these reviews, that
everybody thought we had answered all the questions. And if
you've got a group of scientists in a room, they will always
say we need to do more research. Certainly in this case there
were needs identified for additional research, and, following
up on that, we at HEI, those in industry, in response to EPA
requirements under section 211 under the Clean Air Act, and
other government agencies have gone forward to answer a number
of key questions.
In addition, given the recent concerns--not the recent
concerns, but the concerns about drinking water, both the State
of California and USEPA are pursuing additional research on the
effects in water supplies.
I should note that these studies are underway, some of them
not quite underway, but we have not seen a lot of new data in
the last couple of years since our review. We expect these
studies to provide new information over the next 12 to 18
months.
Both our report and the inter-agency report identified
reports of water contamination as a concern. The inter-agency
report also noted that MTBE appears to move faster in
groundwater and is more resistant to biodegradation than other
components of gasoline.
In response to these concerns, there has been an increase
in the sampling of water supplies for MTBE, as we've been
hearing about some of that here today.
To date, not surprisingly to any of us who have had to run
safe drinking water programs, MTBE has not been detected in the
majority of wells. In fact, it has been detected at all in a
relatively small number of the water sources, and, of those
where it is detected, relatively few have levels above existing
or proposed levels of concern. And that's not to diminish those
concerns where there have been problems, because there have
been real problems.
Senator Chafee. I missed, Mr. Greenbaum, where you were
talking about when you said, I guess, the number of water
sources that were contaminated. Did you say it's probably
limited? Where?
Mr. Greenbaum. Well, for example--and I don't have the
absolute most recent data, but I've seen both February and
April data from the surveys of water sources in the State of
California from the Department of Health Services. In February,
of some 2,600 water sources that have been tested, 1.3 percent
of them had MTBE detected in them, some 34. And some of those
had very high levels, the Santa Monica wells obviously being
among those.
And so there are serious concerns in those locations, but I
think, not surprisingly for those of us who have had to run
safe drinking water programs, those wells tend to be located in
places where you wouldn't expect them to be--close to
underground storage tanks, close to contamination areas--and I
think I would be particularly upset if you saw a high
percentage of wells that were supposedly carefully sited
contaminated by any of these things.
However, there are some subset of the wells--where there
were levels of MTBE, and some part of those where the levels
were sufficient enough to shut down the wells.
So what I was suggesting was that the contamination to date
doesn't appear to have been widespread, but that it continues
to be of concern and regular monitoring, particularly of wells
located near sources such as underground storage tanks may be
appropriate, and that was the point I was trying to make about
that.
Given your time limitations, in closing let me thank the
committee for this opportunity to testify and to say that I'd
be pleased to answer any questions about what I've said or the
other details that I have provided in my background material.
Senator Chafee. What you seem to be saying, if I understand
it, Mr. Greenbaum, is that, whereas there are indications--
let's take California. There are indications of leakage and
this water getting in their plumes and getting into wells, one,
that your research has indicated that it's not as serious
health-wise as perhaps has been portrayed. Is that correct?
Mr. Greenbaum. Well, I was suggesting that the extent of
contamination is not as serious as perhaps has been portrayed.
All the wells haven't been tested, but, to date, the numbers
that have been found are not that high.
I'm not suggesting that, once a well is contaminated, that
there is not a health concern. There is a health concern, and
both EPA and California and other bodies have established
initial guidelines, and in some cases standards, for what is
considered a relatively safe level and what is not.
And some number of wells, a relatively small number, have
been contaminated at levels well above the levels that are
considered safe.
Senator Chafee. I was astonished--and Mr. Sullivan spoke of
what they've done in Maine. He said they've removed more than
30,000, or 98 percent of the underground storage tanks. That's
an incredible figure.
Now, obviously, they did that because they thought that, to
start with, I presume these are leaking. That's why you
replaced them; is that right?
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, it's part of both State and
Federal programs to replace the bare steel tanks with more
state-of-the-art facilities that have leak detection, double
walls, and that type of thing. So Maine's deadline is earlier
than the Federal deadline, so we're ahead of most other States
in achieving that.
And we have seen MTBE for some time associated with
gasoline leaks, but I think the trend that I wanted to note to
you was that we're seeing it not just associated with leaking
underground tanks, but with fairly limited quantities spilled.
A car overturns, a state-of-the-art gas station that has only
been in operation for 3 months with every bell and whistle that
we could require, and we haven't even found the source at that
gas station. It remains closed because of its proximity to a
major water supply.
So we're seeing a new trend that is of concern that may
not--that indicates that small quantities of the product may be
causing contamination in a larger area than other constituents
of gasoline that we'd otherwise be more concerned about.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Dunlap, what do you say about what Mr.
Greenbaum has to say? He seemed to me to be suggesting that the
health concerns were somewhat exaggerated.
Mr. Dunlap. This year----
Senator Chafee. Is that an unfair characterization?
Mr. Greenbaum. I think there are health concerns. I think
it was just the extent of them.
Senator Chafee. All right. The extent. The testimony we've
had here from the California people and yourself is that these
have cited Santa Monica and different communities with great
prevalence of MTBE getting in the water.
Mr. Dunlap. Yes. I think, first of all, we have a high
regard for HEI and have worked with them and we're planning on
working with them on some other issues, as well, so we would
agree with that characterization.
However, we're doing our own work in California. Our
Department of Health Services, in concert with the UC system,
is doing kind of a cradle-to-grave workup analysis on the
impact of MTBE in the environment, and that's going to be
urging from this review some time around the first of the year.
But, Mr. Chairman, we're very concerned and wish to be as
proactive as possible, and these two bills, in particular, have
great appeal to us because we have confidence in a refiner's
ability to do things differently. As a matter of fact, if you
had asked me 10 years ago if I thought gasoline could be
reformulated in a way to allow it to continue to meet very
aggressive clean air standards, I wouldn't have thought they
could have done it. They can do remarkable things.
And what this will do is provide--these two bills would
provide an option for refineries to try to make the product in
a way that it's the same environmental benefit, but protects a
very important and essential resource.
Mr. Chairman, if I might, I don't want to interrupt your
train of thought----
Senator Chafee. No. Go ahead.
Mr. Dunlap. There is a letter I'd like to have added to the
record from me and a colleague of mine, the chairman of our
State Energy Commission, to chairman Bilirakis on the
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment in the House talking
about some--responding to some things that the Department of
Energy asserted in their testimony on the Bilbray legislation
in April.
Senator Chafee. Okay. Fine. That would be good to submit
that.
Mr. Sullivan, in effect, would you like Maine to get--
you've been here for the afternoon. You've heard the testimony.
Would you like Maine to get the same proposal that California
is suggesting?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is what I came here
to testify to--that we think in Maine that flexibility would be
a positive development in Federal law.
Tell the refiners what are the environmental and health
goals that they have to achieve--limitations on volatile
organic compounds, levels of toxics, that type of thing--but
don't tell them that they have to include 2 percent oxygenate.
We have, as I mentioned, been talking to the refiners about
alternatives that might be provided in Maine to RFG. We want to
maintain our progress on clean air. We're very committed to the
goals of the region in achieving the the existing and the new
ozone standard. But the refiners have said, ``Sorry. Everybody
is buying reform. Reform has MTBE. That's what Maine is going
to get.''
We think some have indicated a willingness to work toward
flexibility if they could get some relief from Federal
requirements.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Dunlap, I thought a very telling
point--I believe it was made by Senator Feinstein--following up
on what Mr. Sullivan says, is what you folks want is a
performance-based standard rather than a standard based on
certain criteria that have emanated from here, from Washington.
Is that about it?
Mr. Dunlap. Yes. That's true, again, because of the ability
the refiners have to meet the standards without an oxygenate or
less of an oxygenate than is required. We think they ought to
be given the opportunity to do that.
And we have, as you imagine, an awful lot of technical
discussions. We have some very talented people in the State
bureaucracy that look at these things, and I can assure you
that we're not going to allow any kind of a slippage in
emissions reductions. We can't afford to do it. We need the
tons from this source, and we're going to make sure that we get
them.
I want to just make sure people don't have a false
impression that we're going to loosen a standard or give people
the ability to emit more. We are not.
Senator Chafee. Okay, gentlemen. Thank you all very much
for coming here. Some of you have come a considerable
distance--well, all of you have, particularly Mr. Dunlap. So
thank you for coming.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one minor point?
Senator Chafee. Yes.
Mr. Sullivan. You asked about ethanol in California, and I
just wanted to note that we have found very limited ethanol
available in the northeast, and none of the major refiners or
suppliers have indicated that they would provide ethanol as an
alternative to MTBE as the oxygenate in the northeast.
Senator Chafee. They have not indicated?
Mr. Sullivan. They have indicated they would not.
Senator Chafee. They would not.
Mr. Sullivan. That they are adverse to that idea. Just one
more factor.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
Senator Chafee. Please give my regards to Governor King.
Mr. Sullivan. I will.
Senator Chafee. Thank him for his retentive memory.
Now, Mr. Jessel, senior fuels specialist at Chevron, and
Mr. Douglas Durante, executive director, Clean Fuels
Development Coalition of Arlington, Virginia. If you gentlemen
would come forward, we'd appreciate it.
All right, Mr. Jessel. Your company has been mentioned
several times here. I believe Senator Feinstein has had
discussions with your officials, and we welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF AL JESSEL, SENIOR FUELS SPECIALIST, CHEVRON
PRODUCTS COMPANY, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Jessell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I do come from an area with three bridges, from which none
can you see the water, and I never realized how big a public
policy issue that is until I heard you speak of it today. Boy,
I'm going to start writing letters, myself.
Senator Chafee. The best time to catch them is when they're
building the bridges.
Mr. Jessell. Well, we're about to rebuild one of them.
Senator Chafee. And they'll give you every excuse in the
world. You've got to be ready for that. ``Oh, no. can't do it.
It's Federal rules.'' It's not so.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jessell. Thank you for your advice, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure to be here before the committee today to
testify in support of S. 1576. My name is Al Jessel. I'm a
senior fuels specialist at Chevron Products Company, which is
the largest producer of California reformulated gasoline.
Chevron supports S. 1576, introduced by Senator Feinstein,
and similar legislation, H.R. 630, introduced by Congressman
Bilbray and co-sponsored by 48 Members of the California
delegation in the House of Representatives.
This legislation would remove the overlapping requirements
of the Federal reformulated gasoline over the California
reformulated gasoline program. I hope that after you hear the
discussion today and give this legislation its due
consideration you will move it through the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee and support its enactment into law.
In recognizing the serious and unique air quality concerns
in the State of California, Congress allowed California
authority to regulate fuels in the 1970 Clean Air Act. In 1990,
however, when Congress reauthorized the Clean Air Act and
created its own reformulated gasoline program, provisions were
added which overlapped California's RFG program. S. 1576 would
remove the overlapping Federal requirement, which we do not
believe adds anything to improve air quality in the State of
California.
In California, several drinking water supplies have become
contaminated with MTBE, the most widely-used oxygenate in
California gasoline. Within Chevron, we have conducted a
nationwide program to look at all of our gasoline handling
systems and processes, and have instituted a series of
additional company control measures beyond those required under
Federal and State laws to further reduce the potential release
of gasoline, whether it contains MTBE or not, into the
environment.
There are major differences between the California and
Federal RFG programs. First, California RFG results in lower
emissions of smog-forming compounds than does Federal RFG. This
will continue to be true, even after the year 2000 when the
Federal RFG formulation is made more stringent.
Second, enforcement under the California RFG program is
more effective because it is based on random sampling and
testing of gasoline, rather than the Federal program, which is
paper-based and self-monitoring.
In recognition of the effectiveness of California's State
enforcement, EPA has provided partial exemption for California
from Federal enforcement mechanisms, but that exemption sunsets
at the end of 1999. Interestingly enough, passage of S. 1576
would eliminate this overlap between California and Federal
enforcement, as well.
Finally, the more prescriptive Federal program requires
year-round minimum oxygenate content, while the California
program does not. Research has shown that oxygen is of little
or no value in reducing summertime smog. Unfortunately, the
public has been led to believe that reformulated gasolines
cannot be made without oxygen, but they're simply made by
adding MTBE or other oxygenates to conventional gasoline. This
is simply not true.
As we have shown by doing it the past two summers at our
Richmond, California, refinery, California RFG can be made with
no oxygenate and still meet the stringent emissions reduction
requirements.
While some oxygenates have physical properties that make
them useful in meeting the RFG standards, oxygen, per se, is
not one of them.
The public in California--and these are Chevron's
customers--have become so concerned about MTBE, the oxygenate
used in almost all of California RFG, that a ban was only
narrowly averted in the State Legislature last year.
Senator Chafee. I'm mixed up where you are. What page are
you on? Are you reading from your statement?
Mr. Jessell. Yes, I am. I'm halfway down page two, assuming
that it's the same page numbering. I'm not reading from the
written submission, Mr. Chairman. This is a shorter version.
Senator Chafee. All right. I was just trying to--so you
were talking about attempts in the Legislature to overrule the
requirements?
Mr. Jessell. Correct. And I wanted to add that, because of
the confusion about the role of oxygen in reformulated
gasolines, there were calls for banning California RFG
entirely.
The debate and threat of unilateral State action are far
from over. Studies mandated by the Legislature will be complete
early next year, at which time the governor is required to make
decisions about the future of MTBE in California gasoline.
Interestingly, the Federal oxygen mandate, the stringency
of the California RFG rules, and California's gasoline
distribution system have restricted the use of other oxygenates
such as ethanol and unintended consequence. Ethanol was a good
California gasoline blending component under the right
circumstances, and we believe it will be more widely used if
this legislation passes.
We believe that MTBE-blended California gasoline can be
replaced by a combination of oxygenate-free and ethanol-blended
gasoline.
S. 1576 would allow the State's performance-based program
to work as it was intended. What would be the impact if S. 1576
became law? S. 1576 would allow individual refiners needed
flexibility to further optimize their California gasoline
product formulation, while still maintaining the strict
emission performance targets of California RFG.
Chevron and other companies would welcome the flexibility
to manufacture California RFG based solely on performance
standards. The passage of S. 1576 is a critical first step in
that direction. It would allow California refiners to optimize
the use of oxygenates.
Chevron has reduced MTBE use in California to the limited
extent possible under current rules. If S. 1576 became law,
Chevron would significantly reduce or eliminate MTBE use in our
California gasoline.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. If you have
any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much for that testimony.
Senator Chafee. Now Mr. Durante, who is the executive
director of the Clean Fuels Development Coalition in Arlington,
Virginia.
Mr. Durante, won't you proceed?
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS A. DURANTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEAN
FUELS DEVELOPMENT COALITION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Mr. Durante. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. I am
the executive director of the Clean Fuels Development
Coalition, a nonprofit organization with a diverse membership
that represents a variety of industry interests that include
fuel oxygenate producers, American automobile manufactures,
independent U.S. refiners, and others involved in energy,
agricultural, and clean fuel businesses. Many of our member
companies make and market the products that help to make
gasoline burn cleaner.
We were asked today to direct our testimony to the merits
of a prescribed formula that includes a 2 percent oxygen level
such as is in Federal reformulated gasoline. We believe those
merits are considerable, and we oppose legislative efforts to
change the Federal RFG formula. We were also asked to comment
on the RFG program in general, and on S. 1576.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman, RFG has been a fuel quality
specification that has reduced emissions of carbon monoxide,
more harmful toxic compounds like benzene, and those that
contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone pollution or
urban smog.
This fuel quality specification, to the credit of industry
and government, has been administered safely, efficiently, cost
effectively, required no changes in consumer fueling and
driving habits, and has had no adverse impacts in vehicle
performance.
RFG with oxygenates, despite having emanated from
Washington, has an exceptional track record and it has exceeded
expectations for emissions and air quality benefits; it has
cost less than projected, at under three cents per gallon; it
has consistently out-performed other formulations and
substitutes; it has reduced emissions in all vehicles using it,
and even more so in older cars; it has reduced the consumption
and import of crude oil; it has provided States with an easily-
implemented option for reducing mobile source pollution; and it
has gained wide-spread support throughout the U.S. based on its
success.
Some have promoted the change to this RFG formula in order
to address concerns of MTBE in water. We do not believe this
objective can be obtained simply by allowing California
refiners to use the CARB formula. Others claim that refiners
need flexibility to meet emission reductions.
As for the first objective relating to MTBE in water, we
believe the focus of any corrective measure should be on the
leaking gasoline tanks. Allowing a substitute formula that will
still use MTBE, as would be likely with California gasoline, is
not the solution. We don't believe gasoline, MTBE, or anything
else should be in water. The leaking gas tanks pose a threat to
public health from exposure to a variety of chemical compounds
currently in gasoline and must be dealt with. This is a serious
problem that the oxygenate industry wants to help solve.
The second objective of flexibility is unwarranted. In
addition to its success in reducing ozone, Federal RFG is
available and inexpensive. Most importantly, we do not want to
see efforts to amend the Clean Air Act and the dangerous
precedent it sets nationwide to undermine what has been a very
successful program.
We need to acknowledge that there is a lot we do not know
about ozone formation, but what we do know is this program is
working. Southern California enjoyed a 40 percent reduction in
ozone exceedences the summer after RFG was introduced, and last
year experienced the cleanest summer on record. Phoenix,
Arizona, opted into this program in 1997, and for the first
time in 10 years had an exceedence-free summer.
The presence of oxygenates in RFG sold in California has
yielded air quality and health benefits well in excess of
regulatory requirements and may be providing some benefits we
don't even fully understand. Without such an understanding, it
is impossible to guarantee the equivalency of another recipe,
and the effects of allowing areas to use something other than
RFG may not be cleaner air or improved public health at all.
We have done a great deal of work with the States since
you've developed this program here, and the uniformity of this
program is something they like, Mr. Chairman. They have the
ability to gauge and understand what they are getting with this
program. The fact that it is a specified, non-negotiable
formula is exactly what they're looking for. And the specter of
a patchwork mismatched quilt of fuel programs presents the
potential for an environmental nightmare.
This success has resulted in an extremely broad base of
support. DOE and EPA have expressed their support for this
program. We're continuing to get opt-ins. As recently as 2
weeks ago, the State of Missouri opted in St. Louis.
We had an opportunity in December 1997 for a dozen States
and the District of Columbia that were using RFG to get out of
the program. They elected to stay in so that they would get the
progressive benefits that come with phase two RFG in the year
2000.
Another element that has not been discussed at all today,
Mr. Chairman, is the intent of Congress to marry this issue
with our energy security goals. The whole issue of energy
security is something that should be considered in terms of the
diversity of supply.
During the Clean Air Act deliberations, Congress intended
to substitute aromatics with oxygenates in order to jump start
the ethanol, ETBE, and MTBE industries, and they've done just
that. We've had a dramatic increase in the production of
ethanol since that time.
And most of our national goals in alternative fuels are
failing miserably. We are not achieving the goals that we've
set either through EPACT or through the Clean Air Act, and this
gives us one of the few weapons we have to fight that battle.
And, to the extent that ethanol is used in RFG,
particularly in ETBE, the environmental and energy security
benefits may be even greater.
I want to point out that the development of ethanol
facilities in California would be adversely affected by the
removal of an oxygen requirement, which will help stabilize
their market as they get into this business.
And, along those same lines, my members, consisting of both
ethanol and MTBE interests, have significant capital investment
in places that a response to the regulatory requirements of
this program that would be at risk. All of this would be very
much at risk if this were made optional.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, S. 1576 and its allowance
to use the CARB formula, in our opinion, puts too much focus on
the mass of emissions, and, since not all VOCs are created
alike in terms of their reactivity and toxicity, we run the
danger of producing a fuel that is more reactive and more
likely to cause pollution.
We also need to recognize that degradation of air quality
from off-road sources and non-regulated engines--that are not
recognized in this model and many others that States might
use--can be up to 10 percent of EOC inventory. So we need to
continue to use fuel and air quality strategies that are
successful, as this one has been, for all areas of the United
States. RFG with oxygen is a common-sense, cost-effective
approach that we want to see continued.
I thank you for your interest in holding this hearing and
giving us the opportunity to testify, and would be very pleased
to answer any questions.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Durante.
Mr. Jessel, would Chevron be interested in selling its low
MTBE gas in the rest of the country? In other words, if the 20
percent requirement was lifted for all 50 States, would you
sell all across the country?
Mr. Jessell. Yes, we would. But Chevron is in a unique
position of not producing any Federal reformulated gasoline,
per se, at least up until now. We have most of our refining
capacity in California. We have one major refinery in
Pascagoula, Mississippi, but to this date it supplies the
southeast, which is not required to have Federal RFG, so it is
almost moot for us.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Durante, if I understood your testimony
correctly, you believe that the RFG program has been a success;
is that correct?
Mr. Durante. Extraordinarily so, Mr. Chairman. Yes. And the
numbers would support that.
Senator Chafee. One of the points that has been made here,
it seems to me, is that if a refiner can meet the emission
standards for Federal RFG without the oxygenate mandate, why
not let them do it?
Mr. Durante. Well, one reason I do want to bring up--and
I'm not going to base our support just on this, because this is
the environment committee, but one reason was the whole idea of
diversifying our energy supply, and marry this with our energy
security needs. So if we have to force-feed oxygenates, then
that's what we have to do.
From an environmental standpoint, though, as far as being
able to meet standards without RFG, that's not necessarily some
ground that we want to give.
What we're seeing--and we are working, now that we've moved
sort of out of Washington into the States--is that guaranteeing
equivalency is a tricky business that has not worked real well,
and we are seeing a lot of areas that think they've come up
with something equivalent and believe that they have, only to
see it fail. And this is happening all the time.
Just recently, the State of Alabama in the Birmingham area
was exceeding ozone, and we had them persuaded that RFG was the
right thing for them to do, and at the last minute they decided
to go with a couple of other options, which they then used. Two
weeks ago, on a very hot Friday afternoon, they had six
exceedences. So these things are not working.
I think what you did here in Washington was create a
formula that works. It clearly works. Ozone exceedences, as
evidenced by real-world data, suggests that this is the right
approach.
Senator Chafee. I'm not quite sure I understand. This gets
back to the prior question I asked about whether we want to
have performance-based standards or do we want to delineate
exactly what has to be done in the RFG program from Washington.
In other words, if Chevron meets the requirements, no matter
what they do--well, let's assume that it isn't as deleterious
as MTBE is when it gets into--when it leaks out of underground
storage tanks. In other words, why not let Chevron do it
themselves?
Mr. Durante. Well, we're not persuaded that the predictive
model that California uses compared to the complex model
accurately recognizes all the things that form ozone. We think,
for example, considering carbon monoxide, PM--particulate
matters, is not reflected--and there is a lot we've learned
since we've done this a decade ago. But we don't think that
current models necessarily reflect it, and we think the answer
lies in, again, the dramatic reduction in exceedences.
So, again, we've got something that's working well. It is a
Federal program. There are benefits to being uniform and to
having some of the things that it has associated with it, so
why change this?
Then, again, throughout the entire country, we could be
facing a quilt approach here, a mismatch of fuels that I think
is very dangerous, and the slight ease to some refiners in
California to shake up this entire barrel is a very risky
procedure.
Senator Chafee. Well, Maine said they'd be delighted to do
it, likewise. They would like to have the same law apply to
them.
Mr. Durante. Well, then you get into a whole other issue of
you've got northeast States that have banded together in the
past to try to fight pollution, yours included. A lot of
finger-pointing goes on about who is not doing their part and
who chose the fuel. I go back to this Alabama example of them
choosing what they thought--and I'm sure in their hearts they
don't want to exceed the ozone standard--but they chose what
they thought was a good deal, and it has failed terribly this
summer.
So now you've got the transport of that ozone that they
failed to control blowing into another State, so I think,
again, the uniformity here is a plus, not a minus.
Senator Chafee. Okay. Let me see. Mr. Jessel, if you didn't
use oxygenates, what would you use to get the same emission
reductions and maintain the octane levels?
Mr. Jessell. What we've said is that if we didn't have to
make MTBE-blended gasoline, we would use a combination of non-
oxy gasoline and ethanol-blended gasoline. It's the ethanol-
blended gasoline that would make up the octane deficit that we
would have if we took the MTBE out.
In the non-oxy gasoline, it's nothing more than the
components of gasoline that we have always made gasoline out
of. Now, they are more highly-processed and much more highly-
refined, because we still have to meet the stringent
specifications that California imposes as part of their
reformulated gasoline program, but that can be done with normal
refinery hydrocarbons and normal refinery processing.
Senator Chafee. Okay, gentlemen. Thank you again very much
for coming. Mr. Jessel, you came all the way from San
Francisco. We appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Durante, for
appearing here. Thank you both, gentlemen.
That completes it.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator from the State of
California
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss a serious problem
affecting millions of people in California--the contamination of
drinking water by the gasoline additive, MTBE.
I especially want to thank the chairman, Senator John Chafee, for
his interest in this problem, for holding this hearing and I thank the
other members of the committee for their interest as well.
The Legislation, S. 1576
I am here to ask for your support for S. 1576, the bill I
introduced on January 28, with Congressman Bilbray. H. R. 630 is
sponsored by 49 out of the 52 members of the California delegation.
Our bills, in essence, seek a waiver of the Federal 2 percent
oxygenate requirement. The bills would provide that if a State's
reformulated gasoline rules achieve equal or greater emissions
reductions than Federal regulations, a State's rules will take
precedence. The bill would apply only to States which have received
waivers under Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. California is the
only State currently eligible for this waiver, a waiver allowing
California to set its own fuel standards. The other 49 States do not
set their own fuel specifications.
The current Federal Clean Air Act requires that reformulated
gasoline contain a minimum average oxygen content of 2 percent by
weight. Our bill would give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to
reduce or even eliminate the use of MTBE as long as equivalent or
greater emissions reductions are achieved.
MTBE Is Not Necessary
In 1991, a year after the 1990 amendments to the Federal Clean Air
Act that imposed the current oxygenate requirements, California's Air
Resources Board established its own rules, effective in 1996, for
reformulated gasoline because the ARB determined that Federal rules
would not provide sufficient clean air benefits for the State to meet
Federal ozone standards. California's clean-burning gasoline provides
about twice the air quality benefits of Federal reformulated gasoline,
according to the State's air board.
According to John Dunlap, Chairman of the California Air Resources
Board, who will testify today, ``Federal and State law should set
content neutral performance standards, not prescriptive content volumes
for refiners to meet.'' Thus, in 1994, the ARB approved use of a
predictive model, which is a performance-based program that allows
refiners to use innovative fuel formulations to meet clean air
requirements. The predictive model requires gasoline to meet
California's State standards, which provide twice the clean air
benefits required by the Federal Government. With this model, refiners
can make cleaner burning gasoline with 1 percent oxygen or even no
oxygen at all.''
As Mr. Dunlap told the House in a April 22 hearing there,
``Incredibly, the Federal oxygen rule prevents those refiners from
selling the Northern California gasoline with reduced or no oxygenates
in Southern California, even though the Northern California gasoline
provides twice the clean air benefits required by the Federal
Government.''
Mr. Dunlap has told me that California's reformulated gasoline
requirements have reduced toxic air pollutants by 30 percent and ozone
precursors (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides) by 17 percent. Ozone has
been reduced by 10 percent in Northern California and 18 percent in Los
Angeles. Benzene levels dropped by more than 50 percent. Our program
has had the effect of removing 3.5 million cars out of our 24 million
from the roads.
Gasoline Companies Can Make Clean Gas Without MTBE
Chevron Products Company wrote me on September 11, 1998, ``We
believe it is possible to replace gasoline, which currently contains
MTBE with a combination of ethanol-blended gasoline and non-oxygenated
gasolines, while maintaining the clean air benefits that the California
Cleaner Burning Gasoline program has provided.''
I asked Chevron, ``Can California gasoline be made without MTBE but
preserve emissions benefits?'' Chevron responded as follows:
Yes. California allows the sale of a wide variety of gasoline
formulations without oxygenates as long as they produce the same
emissions reductions as a carefully designed base gasoline. As
discussed above, this has been done at Chevron's Richmond refinery.
Formulations that do not show equivalent or better emissions
performance are not allowed. This is a pure performance standards--
oxygen is not required, per se. Were there no Federal oxygen
requirement, much, but not all, of a refiner's CBG could be made
without MTBE by using ethanol or no oxygenate at all. However, not all
MTBE can be eliminated year round without some increased flexibility in
California's regulations. This can be accomplished without jeopardizing
the emissions benefits that California Cleaner-Burning Gasoline (CBG)
was designed to deliver. The California Air Resources Board has begun
the process of making the needed changes.
The attached report from the Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement
Program shows actual emissions from a fleet of test vehicles run on an
oxygenated vs. a non-oxygenated California gasoline. The report
concluded that emission differences between reformulated California
gasoline with MTBE, and a similar reformulated California gasoline
without MTBE were generally not statistically significant. The result
was true in both 1989 model year fleets as well as later model years
with more advanced emission control technologies. The only
statistically significant difference noted was a 13 percent decrease in
formaldehyde emissions from the advanced fleet with the MTBE-free
fuel.''
I am inserting the letter and materials from Chevron for the
record.
In addition, Tosco is now using ethanol-blended gasoline and when
Tosco began this past April, they say a 20 percent volume increase in
sales at gas stations.
The Problem: Drinking Water Contamination
Contamination of California's drinking water by methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE) is a serious problem in California. In higher
concentrations, it smells like turpentine and it tastes like paint
thinner. MTBE can simply make drinking water simply undrinkable.
MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly
through soil and gravel. It, therefore, poses a more rapid threat to
water supplies than other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur.
MTBE is easily traced, but it is very difficult and expensive to
cleanup. The Association of California Water Agencies estimates that it
would cost as much as $1 million per well to install treatment
technology to remove MTBE from drinking water. Without these funds, the
only option is to shut down wells.
A June 11 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study reached five
important conclusions:
1. ``MTBE is a frequent and widespread contaminant in shallow
groundwater throughout California. There are presently 32,409 leaking
underground fuel tank sites recognized in the State, 13,278 at which
hydrocarbons are known to have impacted groundwater. A minimum estimate
of the number of MTBE-impacted sites in California is greater than
10,000.''
2. ``MTBE plumes are more mobile than BTEX (benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes) plumes.'' Thus, it moves quickly to
infiltrate groundwater.
3. ``The primary attenuation mechanism for MTBE is dispersion.''
4. ``MTBE has the potential to impact regional groundwater
resources and may present a cumulative contamination hazard.''
5. ``We have identified two major areas of uncertainty in our
results. First, presently available MTBE data are limited. Second, the
issue of recalcitrance of MTBE has not been resolved.''
Extent of Contamination
According to the Association of California Water Agencies, MTBE has
been detected in shallow groundwater at over 10,000 sites in
California. Some deeper drinking water wells have also been affected.
The major contamination problems are in Santa Monica (which lost 75
percent of its ground water supply), South Lake Tahoe, Santa Clara
Valley (Great Oaks Water Company) and Sacramento (Fruitridge Vista
Water Company). Drinking water wells in each of these cities have been
shut down because of MTBE contamination.
Californians are more dependent on groundwater as a source of
drinking water than most Americans. According to the U. S. Geological
Survey, 69 percent of California's population relies on groundwater as
their source of drinking water, while for the U. S. population at
large, 53 percent of the population relies on groundwater.
In addition, preliminary data show that MTBE has been detected in
the following surface water reservoirs: Lake Perris (Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California), Anderson Reservoir (Santa Clara
Valley Water District), Canyon Lake (Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District), Pardee Reservoir and San Pablo Reservoir (East Bay Municipal
Utility District), Lake Berryessa (Solano County Water Agency).
I am submitting for the record a list of groundwater MTBE
detections California prepared by the State's Department of Health
Services.
S. 1576 Should Be Enacted
I hope this committee can approve this bill and that we can achieve
Senate passage before this Congress ends. There are several reasons.
1. First and foremost, we must get MTBE out of California's
drinking water.
That is my primary goal. It tastes bad. It smells bad. And we know
it is a health hazard for laboratory animals and possibly humans.
California cannot afford to lose any more of its drinking water.
According to the Association of California Water Agencies, by the year
2020, California will be 4 million to 6 million acre-feet short of
water each year without additional facilities and water management
strategies.
2. The dangers of MTBE were not considered when Congress last
amended the Clear Air Act in 1990.
According to the Congressional Research Service, during Congress's
consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments, which became law in
1990, there was no discussion of the possible adverse impacts of MTBE
as a gasoline additive. Likewise, CARB has said that when they were
considering our State's reformulated gasoline regulations, ``the
concern over the use of oxygenates was not raised as an issue.''
3. California can meet Federal clean air standards by using our own
regulations.
The chairman of the California Air Resources Board this morning
will tell you how our State can have equivalent or greater reductions
in emissions and improve air quality using our own regulations,
regulations which produce twice the clean air benefits. These standards
are more stringent but offer gasoline manufacturers more flexibility
than the prescriptive requirements. Furthermore, U. S. EPA has approved
California's State implementation plan (SIP) required by the Clean Air
Act and which is federally enforceable.
If we can achieve and maintain clean air and meet Federal standards
with our own regulations, I believe we should be allowed to do so.
4. Congress has long recognized that California is a unique case.
California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar Federal
efforts. We have our own clean gas program and U. S. EPA has given the
State a waiver under section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act to develop
our own program.
Other Actions Needed Too
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: There is no question that
leaking underground petroleum or gasoline storage tanks and their
pipelines are a major source of MTBE in drinking water. Fortunately,
Congress has acted and all tanks are supposed to meet Federal safety
standards by December 22, 1998. Unfortunately, EPA estimates that only
half of the nation's 600,000 will comply by that time. In my State, the
State Water Resources Control Board estimates that 31,000 tanks or
about 50 percent of the total still need to be upgraded. Our State
legislature has established a trust fund to assist owners in meeting
the costs of repairs. I applaud this action and in addition I have
appended a copy of my letter to EPA Administrator Browner asking for
her recommendations for action that we should take her and information
on what actions she intends to take if all tanks are not comply by the
December deadline, which is a mere 3 months away.
Accelerate Research: I have written both U.S. EPA and California
EPA urging a more aggressive research agenda to more definitively
ascertain the human health impacts, acute and chronic. I wrote to U. S.
EPA on April 11 and 14, September 24 and on November 14, 1997. EPA
responded that an interagency group had met to ``finalize the research
strategy for fuel oxygenates.'' I have again written Ms. Browner to ask
the status of that strategy and when we will learn more about MTBE's
hazards.
Drinking Water Standard: On November 3, 1997, I wrote Browner
urging EPA to promulgate a drinking water standard for MTBE. Assistant
Administrator Perciasepe responded on December 8 that EPA was
finalizing a drinking water advisory on MTBE. I am grateful that EPA
issued a drinking water advisory in December 1997, but this is not a
standard. This is guidance only. In that same letter, he indicated that
EPA had ``placed MTBE on the draft Contaminant Candidate List for
further evaluation to determine whether or not to regulate MTBE in
drinking water.'' I have written again to stress that this process be
accelerated.
I would like to submit for the record my correspondence with EPA.
MTBE & Respiratory Problems
A number of studies are underway to analyze the impact of MTBE on
human health. I would like to bring to the committee's attention the
work of Dr. Peter Joseph, Ph.D., Professor of Radiologic Physics in
Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center. Dr. Joseph
contends that the astounding increase in asthma rates could be linked
to the increasing use of MTBE in gasoline. I have urged EPA to examine
this issue and hope that you can support more research on MTBE and its
effect on respiratory illnesses.
I would like to submit for the record Dr. Joseph's letter to me and
his study, ``Changes in Disease Rates in Philadelphia Following the
Introduction of Oxygenated Gasoline.''
Conclusion
Millions of Californians should not have to drink water
contaminated with MTBE. I believe we can put in place requirements for
clean gasoline that do not degrade the air but that also do not
contaminate our water.
I look forward to working with you toward this end.
[Statements and documents referenced in Senator Feinstein's
statement follow:]
City of Milpitas,
Milpitas, CA 95035, September 3, 1998.
Honorable Pete Wilson, Governor,
First Floor, State Capitol,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Resolution Urging a Prohibition on the Use of MTBE in
Gasoline
Dear Governor Wilson: On September 1, 1998, the City Council of the
City of Milpitas adopted Resolution No. 6810 urging you to employ your
executive powers to prohibit the use of Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether
(MTBE) and other ether oxygenates in gasoline in California. A copy of
the Resolution is attached.
The City of Milpitas relies on local groundwater aquifers to supply
over 40 percent of the water needs of its customers. Contamination of
those groundwater supplies by MTBE or other ether oxygenates would
create a very serious water quality problem, which would be extremely
expensive to correct. The City's water customers, which include some of
the largest electronic firms in the world, rely on high quality water
for human consumption as well as industrial use.
Your efforts to prohibit the use of MTBE are appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Henry Manayan, Mayor.
______
Milpitas, CA, Resolution No. 6810
a resolution of the city council of the city of milpitas requesting the
governor to prohibit the use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether or other
ether oxygenates in gasoline
Be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of Milpitas,
California (``City'') as follows:
Whereas, Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (``MTBE'') represents a threat
to groundwater and surface water supplies in California; and
Whereas, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in
the water supply; and
Whereas, MTBE is highly soluble in water, shows a high degree of
mobility in soils and persistence in the water and has a very low taste
and odor threshold; and
Whereas, although the health effects of MTBE are not well known, it
is a possible human carcinogen; and
Whereas, the City is responsible for developing and maintaining a
safe, healthful, potable and reliable water supply for the more than
62,000 residents and water customers of the City; and
Whereas, the City's objectives include water quality protection and
enhancement; and
Whereas, the City relies upon groundwater to supply the water needs
of some of its customers; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at nearly 300 leaking underground
storage tank sites in Santa Clara County; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at very low levels in at least one
drinking water well at a location in the Santa Clara Valley not within
the City; and
Whereas, the mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leading
underground storage tanks, other gasoline storage and distribution
systems, gasoline-powered water craft, storm water runoff, and rainfall
washout; and
Whereas, to protect the public health and welfare the California
Department of Health Services is in the process of promulgating a
Maximum Contaminant Level for MTBE in drinking water.
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the City Council of the City of
Milpitas urges a prohibition on the use of MTBE or any other ether
oxygenate as an additive to gasoline within the State of California.
Be It Further Resolved that the City Council of the City of
Milpitas urges the Governor to employ his executive powers to achieve
removal of MTBE and other ether oxygenates as additives to motor
vehicle fuels in the Sate of California in order to protect the State's
valuable water resources, and to work with the appropriate authorities
at the Federal level to achieve this prohibition and to identify
alternative methods to achieve acceptable air quality objectives.
Passed and adopted this 1st day of September, 1998,
______
Orange County Water District,
Fountain Valley, CA, September 1, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Los Angeles, CA 90025.
Dear Senator Feinstein: At the request of the Board of Directors of
the Orange County Water District (OCWD), I have been asked to forward
the attached August 19,1998, Board of Director's Resolution concerning
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). This Resolution reflects a real,
growing concern on the part of the OCWD Board about the realities of
MTBE contamination. While low taste and odor thresholds will keep the
consumers safe from MTBE's health effects, it remains a very real
economic threat through possible contamination of future water
supplies.
A recent study by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL), entitled ``An Evaluation of MTBE Impacts to California
Groundwater,'' found that MTBE is more mobile in groundwater than other
gasoline additives and is extremely slow to degrade in the environment.
We feel the results of the LLNL study clearly justify the
recommended actions mentioned in our Resolution. We ask for your
strongest support of these actions which we feel are in the best
interests of all Californians. Please keep us informed on any actions
you may take in support of this Resolution.
Sincerely,
William R. Mills Jr., P.E., General Manager.
______
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water
District Concerning Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Whereas, the Orange County Water District is concerned about the
potential for widespread contamination of Orange County's drinking
water supplies by methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and is carrying
out an MTBE action plan; and
Whereas, MTBE, a chemical additive in gasoline that reduces carbon
monoxide exhaust emissions, is also contaminating ground and surface
waters throughout California, primarily due to leaking underground
gasoline storage tanks and gasoline-powered watercraft on lakes,
reservoirs and rivers; and
Whereas, water agencies and their customers should not be burdened
with funding the cleanup of MTBE contamination, as these costs could
force water suppliers to significantly raise their water rates for
residential and industrial customers; and
Whereas, a recent study by the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory concluded that MTBE is more mobile in groundwater than other
gasoline additives; is extremely slow to degrade in the environment;
and demonstrates a low odor and taste threshold; and
Whereas, while MTBE's low taste and odor thresholds will keep
consumers safe from adverse health effects, it remains a very real
economic threat to future water supplies;
Now, Therefore, Be It Hereby Resolved, that the Board of Directors
of the Orange County Water District, based on the results of the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study, strongly recommend the
following actions be taken by local, state and Federal officials to
immediately address the MTBE issue:
<bullet> Support development of legislation banning MTBE as a
gasoline additive within 2 years, while continuing to maintain or
enhance air quality.
<bullet> Augment the State's regulatory agencies' resources that
deal with MTBE contamination, including discovery, monitoring and clean
up, so that existing and yet undiscovered MTBE contamination can be
remediated on an expedited basis.
<bullet> Support regulatory change that prevents use of gasoline
powered watercraft on water supply reservoirs.
______
Chevron Products Company,
San Francisco, September 11, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510-0504
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you again for meeting with me last
week while I was in Washington. We appreciate your leadership in
sponsoring S. 1576 and strongly support its enactment into law. This is
an issue of great concern to Chevron and to our customers. While we
believe MTBE is safe, if handled properly, and is not a public health
threat, we do recognize there are environmental concerns and have been
actively pursuing alternatives to the continued use of MTBE in gasoline
in California.
As I mentioned, we have produced significant quantities of gasoline
in California without MTBE, in areas where Federal law does not require
oxygenates to be added. Supplying the entire California gasoline market
will require further refinery modifications and additional changes to
both Federal and state gasoline requirements. We believe it is possible
to replace gasoline, which currently contains MTBE with a combination
of ethanol-blended gasoline and non-oxygenated gasolines, while
maintaining the clean air benefits that the California Cleaner Burning
Gasoline program has provided.
However, significantly reducing or eliminating MTBE from our
gasolines without compromising those clean air benefits is first
dependent on getting the needed change in Federal law, which S. 1576
provides. Passage of S. 1576 would allow refiners to use the most
effective formulations of gasoline whether or not they contain
oxygenates, as long as they meet the stringent California gasoline
emissions performance standards. We therefore strongly support this
important legislation.
We will also need flexibility in the regulations of the California
Air Resources Board. We have been discussing regulatory changes with
CARB that we hope will give refiners the flexibility needed to provide
gasolines that meet or exceed clean air standard, without the continued
need to use MTBE.
Additional information to address issues you raised is included hi
the attachments to this letter. The California Cleaner Burning Gasoline
has been very effective hi helping reduce vehicle emissions and improve
air quality. However, we do need Congress and CARB to make changes he
the requirements that limit our ability to produce gasoline without
MTBE. Your continued leadership hi this effort appreciated.
Sincerely,
David J. O'Reilly, President.
______
Tosco Corporation,
Concord, CA, October 17, 1997.
John D. Dunlap, III,
Chair, Air Resources Board,
2020 L Street, 4th Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95812.
Dear Mr. Dunlap: In light of the continuing controversy surrounding
MTBE, Tosco would like to communicate its concerns directly to you. We
believe that responsible action should be taken sooner rather than
later to allow the reduced use or elimination of MTBE in gasoline. Our
call to action is based on growing evidence. of the potential for
extensive MTBE contamination that could occur and the resulting
liability the state, and ultimately our citizens, could face to restore
California drinking water supplies.
Tosco, as you know, is one of the largest refiners and marketers of
gasoline in California. It is now apparent that the issue of potential
MTBE contamination of the state's water was not adequately considered
prior to implementation of the Federal and state reformulated gasoline
regulations. Consequently, we find ourselves in a ``Catch 22'' since
the current regulatory framework effectively leaves us no choice but to
use MTBE to meet clean fuel standards.
A good first step, which I understand you support, would be passage
of H.R. 630 (Bilbray) currently pending in the U.S. House of
Representatives. This bill, which would provide some of the flexibility
refiners need to begin shifting away from MTBE, already has the support
of most of the California Congressional delegation.
There may be other regulatory changes which could be made to allow
greater use of other oxygenates (such as ethanol) or the use of no
oxygenates. Based on the recently released Auto/Oil study, it appears
that oxygenates will not be needed in the long run to achieve reduced
emissions. It seems eminently logical, given the obvious water quality
problems associated with MTBE, to begin immediately to move toward
complete oxygenate flexibility.
We believe the timetable for action set up by the recently passed
legislation is too slow and that the state should take decisive action
immediately to begin to move away from MTBE. Tosco is committed to
working cooperatively with ARB, other agencies, the Legislature and
industry to resolve this problem promptly, without endangering the
state's clean air or clean water programs, and without negatively
affecting the supply or cost of gasoline in California.
Sincerely,
Duane B. Bordvick, Vice President,
Environment and External Affairs, Tosco Corporation.
______
State of California,
Office of the Governor,
Sacramento, CA, August 7, 1998.
Honorable John Chafee, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that during the Senate floor debate
on the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill for EPA, Senator Feinstein
explored attaching her legislation, S. 1576, as a floor amendment to
that appropriations bill. I support S. 1576, and its comparison measure
introduced by Rep. Brian Bilbray, H.R. 630. The State has testified
before the House Commerce Committee in favor of H.R. 630.
While I regret that Senator Feinstein was initially unsuccessful, I
am pleased that you agreed to hold a hearing on S. 1576 in September. I
urge you to schedule a legislative hearing as, early as possible, while
there is still ample time led In this Congress to enact legislation.
Both S. 1576 and H.R. 630 recognize the exemplary history of
California's clean air programs by allowing, US, the flexibility to
have our existing reformulated gasoline program--which is performance-
based and flexible with respect to gasoline recipes--operate in lieu of
the Federal program in our state. The Clean Air Act already provides
special rules for California. This legislation is a logical extension
of that principle.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Pete Wilson, Governor.
______
California Energy Commission,
Sacramento, CA, September 15, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the California Energy
Commission (CEC), I am pleased to communicate our strong support for S.
1576. The CEC endorses the additional flexibility that will be given to
all California refiners while still maintaining the benefits of
California's more stringent reformulated gasoline (RFG) program.
We believe that the use oxygenates, without the regulatory
requirement, will achieve a more natural equilibrium in the market for
transportation fuels. We expect the oxygenate demand could be lower
under S. 1576. This would also put downward pressure on the price that
refiners pay, thus providing the potential to reduce their costs
further. Both of these situations could mean lower gasoline price for
California consumers.
In closing, the California Energy Commission applauds yow
sponsorship of S. 1576 and believes that the passage of this bill will
translate into water flexibility for the refining industry without
sacrificing the environmental benefits of our existing reformulated
gasoline regulations.
Sincerely,
David A. Rohy, Vice Chair,
California Energy Commission.
______
California Environmental Protection Agency,
Sacramento, CA, February 28, 1997.
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on Commerce,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bliley: I An pleased to express the support of the
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) for H.R. 630, the
reintroduction of last session's H.R. 3518. Under this bill, pertaining
to Federal reformulated gasoline regulations, California's cleaner
burning gasoline regulations would apply in California lieu of existing
Federal regulations as long as these regulations achieve equivalent or
greater reductions in emissions of ozone-forming compounds and toxic
air contaminants.
As you know, California has historically faced the most challenging
air pollution problems in the Nation end has therefore been the only
state allowed by the Federal Clear Air Act to develop and administer
its own motor vehicle emission standards. As long as these standards
are at least as protective as the Federal standards and meet other
criteria, our California motor vehicle emission standards can be
substituted for the Federal standards. California is also the only
state given unconditional authority under the Federal Clean Air Act to
adopt its own emission control standards for gasoline and other motor
vehicle fuels.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments directed the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt a Federal reformulated gasoline
program for urban areas with the most serious smog problems. Those
amendments mandated that Federal reformulated gasoline include various
specified properties and imposed limitations on the level of
flexibility that the U.S. EPA could build into the programs.
Unfortunately, the overlapping applicability of the state and
Federal reformulated gasoline regulations substantially reduces the
extent to which refiners can take advantage of the flexibility built
into the California program. Refiners are required to comply with the
Federal Clean Air Act even though the California predictive models
shows that a different formulation will achieve equivalent or better
air quality benefits. Refiners are also required to meet complicated
Federal reporting and recordkeeping requirements that are not necessary
for compliance with the State program. Although we are pleased that
U.S. EPA exempted California refiners from a number of the Federal
enforcement requirements, a refiner can lose that exemption as a result
of even a single violation of the California regulations.
Now that the California and Federal reformulated gasoline
regulations are in place, it is clear that it makes best sense for the
state relations to apply in lieu of the Federal regulations, as is the
case with California's motor vehicle emission standards. Enactment of a
bill similar to last session's H.R 3513 is necessary so that refiners
can fully use the flexibility built into the California program, and
can avoid needless paperwork requirements. This will reduce the costs
of producing California gasoline, and should lead to lower prices at
the pump.
Furthermore, H.R. 3518 was carefully crafted to assure that
Californians enjoy all of the health benefits of reformulated gasoline.
The California gasoline regulations have been approved by U.S. EPA as
part of our State Implementation Plan, and are thus federally
enforceable.
Our program has a proven, significant effect on California's air
quality. Following the introduction of California's gasoline program in
the spring of 1996, monitored levels of ozone, on a weather-adjusted
basis, were reduced by 10 percent in northern California and 18 percent
in the Los Angeles area. Benzene levels dropped by more than 50
percent.
The California regulations would replace the Federal regulations
only if they will achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions. We
support the approach in last year's bill to base the equivalency
analysis on the aggregated emissions of toxic air contaminants, since
section 21(k)(10)(C) of the Clean Air Act defines ``toxic air
contaminants'' for purposes of the Federal reformulated gasoline
requirements as the aggregate emissions of five identified compounds.
For these reasons, Cal/EPA fully supports H.R. 630. Please let me
know if there is anything myself or Cal/EPA can do to assist in its
passage.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any
questions, please contact me at (916) 322-5840.
Sincerely,
John D. Dunlap, Chairman,
______
Association of California Water Agencies,
Sacramento, CA, September 14, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510-0504
RE: ACWA Support for S. 1576, Legislation to permit the exclusive
application of California State regulations regarding reformulated
gasoline in certain areas within the State
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for the opportunity to submit
this statement on behalf of the Association of California Water
Agencies (ACWA) regarding S. 1576 and larger issues surrounding
gasoline additives and their potential impact on California water
suppliers.
ACWA's 437 public water agency members collectively manage and
deliver 90 percent of the urban and agricultural water used in the
state. Over 30 million Californians rely on ACWA members to provide a
safe and reliable supply of drinking water to their homes, schools and
businesses.
The use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline is
presenting a new and ominous challenge for water suppliers in
California. Though the subjects of gasoline additives and air quality
regulations may be unfamiliar terrain for water agencies, ACWA members
have a compelling interest in decisions regarding the continued use of
MTBE and other oxygenates in gasoline. The potential for widespread
drinking water contamination and the tremendous treatment costs
involved demand that water utilities weigh in to ensure that water
supply impacts receive due attention and consideration in the MTBE
debate.
MTBE's unique properties pose a contamination threat to both
groundwater and surface water in California. Because MTBE is highly
water soluble and does not easily biodegrade, it can percolate through
the ground into groundwater basins faster than other components of
gasoline and is much more difficult to remove once it is there.
Sampling by ACWA members and other agencies shows that MTBE is
indeed finding its way into groundwater and surface water sources. MTBE
has been detected at relatively high levels in shallow groundwater
basins in several parts of the state and in deep drinking water wells,
primarily as a result of leaking underground storage tanks and / or
pipelines. The most notable example is in the City of Santa Monica,
where 80 percent of the water supply has been lost due to MTBE
contamination. In South Lake Tahoe, 12 of the South Lake Tahoe Public
Utilities District's 34 wells have been shut down due to the threat of
MTBE contamination from nearby leaking underground storage tanks. Three
of those wells have already been contaminated. Wells in the Santa Clara
and Sacramento areas have also been shut down due to MTBE
contamination.
A statewide survey of surface water sources coordinated by ACWA
shows MTBE contamination at lower but potentially significant levels in
reservoirs throughout California. Preliminary results indicate anywhere
from 60 percent to 75 percent of the reservoirs sampled have detectable
levels of MTBE. Surface water contamination is believed to result
primarily from use of motorized watercraft on lakes and reservoirs.
Though some call MTBE the most studied chemical in gasoline, little
definitive data is available about the health effects of MTBE in
drinking water. The state Department of Health Services has established
an interim ``action level'' of 35 parts per billion (ppb), and has
proposed a secondary (consumer acceptance-based) standard for MTBE at 5
ppb. A primary (health effects-based) standard is due in July 1999.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a drinking
water advisory for MTBE recommending a maximum of 20 ppb--40 ppb to
avoid taste and odor impacts and protect public health.
Initial studies show that consumers can detect MTBE at relatively
low levels. With such a low taste and odor threshold, MTBE
contamination can render drinking water unacceptable to consumers at
levels much lower than California's current action level and EPA's
advisory level.
Most drinking water systems in California are not equipped to
remove MTBE. The limited research that has been done to date indicates
that MTBE is more difficult and more expensive to remove from drinking
water than other components of gasoline. Developing, constructing and
operating treatment processes to remove MTBE will be tremendously
costly at a time when public water agencies already face mounting costs
to keep healthful water flowing to their customers' taps. Some
utilities estimate that treatment costs could exceed $1 million for
each contaminated drinking water well.
ACWA members believe several actions are needed to protect water
sources and drinking water consumers from the impacts of MTBE use. One
of the most important is passage of legislation that provides
flexibility to California to meet air quality goals without the use of
oxygenates such as MTBE that pose a threat to drinking water sources.
The California State Legislature passed two bills this session
which target the fuel oxygenate issue. SB 2198 (Skier, Leslie), an
ACWA-sponsored bill, will provide $20 million over 3 years for water
utilities to pay for costs stemming from contamination of drinking
water by gasoline additives such as MTBE. AB 1642 (Bower), will expand
the types of oxygenates that can be added to California gasoline by
prohibiting the application of oxygenate content cap. This would allow
oil companies the flexibility of using oxygenates other than MTBE, such
as ethanol, in California gas. Both bills are awaiting signature by the
Governor.
ACWA supports S. 1576 and similar legislation in the Senate that
takes a related approach. The Association believes passage of S. 1576
would provide a critical first step away from regulatory constraints
that create an unjustified and unacceptable tradeoff between air and
water quality protection.
California simply cannot afford to lose any of its limited water
resources to MTBE contamination. According to projections by the
State's Department of Water Resources, California will be 4 million to
6 million acre-feet short of water each year by 2020 without additional
facilities and water management strategies. Given these growing
demands, protection of our water resources must be given full
consideration in every forum in which MTBE and other oxygenates are
evaluated.
The potential for drinking water contamination and the tremendous
treatment costs involved warrant serious consideration by the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee as it evaluates any legislation
affecting gasoline specifications. ACWA stands ready to assist the
committee, State and Federal agencies and industry representatives as
they seek to address MTBE and related issues.
Thank you for this opportunity to express ACWA's support for S.
1576.
Sincerely,
Stephen K. Hall, Executive Director.
______
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District,
Fresno, CA, April 1, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Feinstein: The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District strongly supports H.R. 630, as your bill
would provide California with greater authority over its clean air
program by allowing California's cleaner-burning gasoline regulation to
apply in lieu of Federal reformulated gasoline regulations.
California's reformulated fuel would be required to achieve equivalent
or greater reductions in emissions of ozone forming compounds and toxic
contaminants.
H.R. 630 is needed because oil refineries must now simultaneously
implement California's cleaner-burning gasoline regulations and the
regulations for Federal reformulated gasoline in most of southern
California and the Sacramento region. This results in regulatory
duplication, inconsistent regulatory requirements, and unnecessary
costs without deriving any additional air quality benefits.
Furthermore, Federal law requires a strict gasoline recipe which
mandates use of specified levels of oxygenates such as MTBE and
ethanol. H.R. 630 in combination with proposed state of California
actions, provides greater flexibility for oil refiners to use
oxygenates in lesser amounts or no oxygenates at all to provide
cleaner-burning gasoline.
Sincerely,
David L. Crow, Executive Director.
______
Statement of Proceedings for Meeting of the Community Development
Commission of the County of Los Angeles
tuesday, august 18, 1998
Recommendation as submitted by Supervisor Antonovich: Support
Congressman Bilbray and Senator Feinstein's amendments to the Clean Air
Act to repeal the mandated use of oxygenates in gasoline, instruct the
County's Legislative Advocates in Washington DC to work for passage of
the amendments; and send letters expressing the Board's support for
passage of the amendments to the Congressional Leadership and the
California Congressional Delegation. APPROVED (See supporting document)
Vote: Unanimously carried.
The Board has approved Supervisor Mike Antonovich's motion
supporting Federal legislation repealing mandated use of carcinogenic
oxygenates, such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline.
``This carcinogen has been found in well water, lakes and
reservoirs. This is the result of motorboat exhaust. It makes no sense
to have the Federal Government mandate this dangerous pollutant when
there are viable alternatives,'' Antonovich said.
``A study at the University of California, Los Angeles, also
revealed that MTBE is leaking from 10,000 gasoline storage tanks
statewide,'' he added.
Antonovich noted that lawsuits have been filed seeking to ban MTBE
in gasoline.
The Board's action instructs the counts legislative advocates
Washington, DC to work for passage of the legislation and five-
signature letters to congressional leadership and to to California
congressional delegation.
motion by supervisor michael d. antonovich--mtbe (gasoline additive)
A lawsuit seeking to ban the gasoline additive, MTBE, has been
filed against the largest oil companies doing business in California.
MTBE, according to a study currently underway at UCLA, is leaking from
10,000 tanks across California. These leaks constitute a potential
health hazard as the MTBE, a suspected carcinogen, seeps into drinking
water sources.
This is the dark side of MTBE. However, it also has a good side.
MTBE is an oxygenate that is a key ingredient of cleaner burning
gasoline. According to the California Air Resources Board, using MTBE
in gasoline has eliminated an amount of carbon monoxide equivalent to
removing 3 million to 4 million gas powered vehicles from California's
streets and freeways.
Use of oxygenates such as MTBE in gasoline is mandated by Federal
law in non-attainment areas. However, these mandates are an unnecessary
intrusion into local clean air efforts. There are two alternatives to
oxygenation: 1) use of ethanol blends, which are now proving successful
in a Bay Area pilot project; 2) a computer model in which the different
components of gasoline are formulated into a blend that meets Air
Resources Board standards for reformulated gasoline.
Congressman Brian Bilbray and Senator Dianne Feinstein have
introduced amendments to the Clean Air Act repealing the oxygenation
mandate. California should have access to the full spectrum of
strategies, so long as emissions standards are met. This would help us
to protect both our air and our water.
I, Therefore, Move that this Board:
1. Instruct the County Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer to
review the lawsuit and make recommendations to this Board as to whether
Los Angeles County should file an amicus brief on behalf of the
plaintiffs;
2. Support the Bilbray and Feinstein amendments to the Clean Air
Act repealing the mandated use of oxygenates in gasoline;
3. Instruct our advocates in Washington, DC, to work for passage of
these amendments; and
4. Send copies of this motion to the congressional leadership and
the California congressional delegation.
______
City of South Lake Tahoe,
September 14, 1998.
Hon. Diane Feinstein,
United States Senate,
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Senator Feinstein: MTBE, a gasoline additive, is a growing
threat to water supplies in California and, indeed, around the nation.
In South Tahoe during the last year, we have lost 35 percent of our
drinking water wells, supplying 17 percent of our water, duo solely to
MTBE contamination of our underground aquifers. This is clearly a
problem that requires immediate attention from California lawmakers and
regulatory officials.
The answer to the MTBE threat in South Tahoe is two-fold. First we
need timely and efficient remediation of MTBE contamination that now
threatens water quality. Remediation is an arduous and complicated
process that, as yet, has not been accomplished at levels necessary to
protect our water. Second, given the fact that the MTBE releases have
occurred due to a variety of malfunctions and human error at gas
stations with tank systems updated to meet 1998 underground tank
requirements, it is reasonable to conclude that as long as MTBE is
present in gasoline sold in South Lake Tahoe, our vulnerable
groundwater will always be at risk.
Various legislative and regulatory bodies proclaim their empathy at
our plight, but despite this expressed concern, drinking water wells
that serve our citizens are no more protected than they were a year
ago; no plume has been remediated, any, in fact, contamination
continues to expand,
We are in a serious situation, and we need your help.
We support S. 1576. The policies of the State of California,
however, prompt us to urge Federal action further than the bill
provides. The use of MTBE must be restricted in areas where groundwater
has been shown to be highly vulnerable to MTBE contamination, and where
the groundwater is the source of community drinking water.
Thank you for consideration of this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Hal Cole, Mayor.
______
South Tahoe Public Utility District,
South Lake Tahoe CA, September 14, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Please distribute this letter, urging
support for S. 1576, to your colleagues. The South Tahoe Public Utility
District needs a concerted governmental effort to protect our drinking
water aquifers from the insidious intrusion of MTBE, and we hope this
legislation can help facilitate a coordination that is sorely lacking
between air and water concerns.
Lake Tahoe is often called the ``jewel in the sky.'' While much
Federal attention has been given to the problem of declining lake
clarity, the MTBE threat to our underground aquifers is immediately
impacting the water supply of residents and visitors in South Tahoe--
and the destruction of this natural resource deserves the same
attention without delay.
South Tahoe relies solely on our underground aquifers for our
drinking water supply. Because of MTBE emanating from tank systems
(updated to 1998 standards) at gas stations, 35 percent of our wells
are closed, resulting in a loss of 3.4 million gallons of water a day.
In the last year, we have lost 17 percent of our water supply due
solely to MTBE.
We have been informed by air specialists at EPA Region IX that the
air quality at Tahoe is such that oxygenates are not required under the
Clean Air Act. In a letter to the editor at the Sacramento Bee,
California Air Resource Board Chairman John Dunlap stated that the CARB
``has never required or even certified the use of MTBE . . . a Federal
law approved by Congress required the use of MTBE or similar additives
in most California gasoline...
Given that nobody is requiring MTBE use here, we are left with a
conundrum: Are the aquifers being destroyed to address a non-existing
problem?
Senator Feinstein, we are a small public agency. Our total annual
budget for supplying water is $7 million, but by October we will have
spent over $1 million trying to protect the drinking water from MTBE.
We do not have the financial, technical, or legal resources to waste on
a contaminant that public officials tell us serves no useful purpose in
this tiny, but important, area that is a national treasure.
Please help us. We would prefer to see legislation that
specifically prohibits MTBE in areas, like South Tahoe, where it has
been shown that groundwater is extremely vulnerable to MTBE
contamination and where that groundwater is the sole source of drinking
water. Failing an outright use restriction, we appreciate any effort
whatsoever that will help us save our drinking water.
Sincerely,
James Jones, President.
______
Status of Wells Impacted by MTBE
Summary
Wells shut down due to detections of MTBE in the well 8 (7
operational and 1 on standby).
Wells shut down because of proximity to MTBE plumes: 4.
Percentile of District's wells shut down because of MTBE: 35
percent.
Lost production capacity due to shutdowns: 3.4 million gallons per
day.
Percentage of potential water production lost because of well
closures: 17 percent.
Helen 1 & 2
Capacity: 362 gallons per minute.
Status: shut down in March 1998, due to a ``drive off'' at Beacon/
Ultramar 250 feet from wells.
Beacon (South Lake Tahoe) and adjoining property are the
potentially responsible parties.
Concentrations in nearby monitoring well of 3,300 ppb. We have
informed Lahontan several times of our concerns that Beacon's remedial
action plan will not remediate offsite contamination threatening our
wells. Beacon refuses to cooperate with STPUD efforts to investigate
the plume.
On September 11 Lahontan charged Beacon/Ultramar with violating
their Amended Cleanup and Abatement Order and fined them $6,000.
Future: These wells may be history. Additional investigation is
required to determine the hydraulic connectivity of the wells with the
plume.
Blackrock 1 & 2
Capacity 165: gallons per minute.
Status: Shutdown in November 1997
Tahoe Tom's is the responsible party. A gasoline plume was
originally discovered in 1990 and we suspect the new tank system also
leaked. Lahontan has issued three Cleanup and Abatement Orders, the
latest in 1997. A remediation system is being installed. STPUD analysis
and modeling indicate that the remediation system is grossly inadequate
to address the 1 foot of free product gasoline with MTBE concentrations
of 1.2 million ppb. The MTBE plume is within 500 feet of our wells.
Lahontan is preparing a letter directing Tahoe Tom's to improve their
plan.
Future: If operated, these wells will likely become contaminated
beyond rehabilitation.
Arrowhead 1 & 2
Capacity: 805 gallons per minute.
Status: Shut down in September 1997. MTBE was detected at 2 ppb.
Beacon (Meyers) is the responsible party. The MTBE plume is 1,300
feet long, with concentrations in excess of 28,000 ppb. New tank system
leak has been stopped, but secondary containment system is
nonoperational. Environmental consultants called a work stoppage due to
lack of payment. Lahontan is taking over remediation efforts.
In July 1998 Lahontan fined the owner of the Beacon $84,000.
Lahontan received $100,000 from the state to initiate cleanup
activities and has applied to the state for an additional $500,000 to
conduct remediation.
Future: These wells will be destroyed by the District and replaced
with a deeper well at the same site. The new well will extend below an
extensive thick clay aquitard that will protect it from the MTBE plume.
Tata Lane No. 4
Capacity: 70 gallons per minute.
Status: Shut down in July 1998 when MTBE concentrations reached 37
ppb. USA gas station is the responsible party. Original gas plume was
discovered in 1983, and the new tank system continued to leak. The
plume is 1,500 feet long. Lahontan issued three Cleanup and Abatement
Orders. The current remediation system is being expanded, but the
addition extraction wells are not placed so that they will protect the
well from continuing contamination, nor are they large or deep enough.
In August, upon receiving a strangely worded suggestion from
Lahontan that they close the pumps to look for the leak, station owners
found and stopped the leak. On September 10, Lahontan charged station
owners with violating Cleanup and Abatement Orders and fined them
$292,500.00
Future. District will abandon the well. It may be destroyed, or it
may become part of USA's offsite remediation system.
Tata Wells 1, 2 & 3
Capacity: 550 gallons per minute.
Status. Shut down in August 1998. On September 8, the District
received lab results showing MTBE contamination in the wells in
concentrations ranging between 0.12 and 0.22 ppb.
USA gas station is the responsible party. These wells represent a
significant portion of our backup, short-term, emergency water supply.
Future: Unknown at this time.
Julie Well
Capacity: 205 gallons per minute.
Status: Shut down on September 10. On September 2 the District
received lab results showing MTBE contamination at 0.25 ppb. Water from
the Julie well was treated by an air stripper that has proven to be
effective in removing small levels of MTBE.
USA gas station is the potentially responsible party.
Future: Unknown at this time.
South Y Well
Capacity: 200 gallons per minute (On standby)
Status: Taken off standby status and shut down on September 4. On
September 2, the District received lab reports showing MTBE
contamination at 0.11 ppb.
USA gas station is the responsible party.
Future: Probable retirement.
Paloma Well
Capacity: 2,500 gallons per minute.
Status: Running at half capacity.
These wells represent the heart of our system. Terrible Herbst is
the responsible party. Gasoline plumes first discovered in 1984.
Lahontan issued three Cleanup and Abatement Orders, the latest in 1997.
Terrible Herbst says that it plans to expand its remediation system
and, in the meantime, continues to operate. Concentrations of MTBE
appear to be low, but no deep aquifer monitoring has been done. We have
requested that Lahontan require Terrible Herbst to conduct sampling at
deeper depths.
Future: Continue to monitor the situation.
______
[From the South Tahoe Utility District]
Help Make Tahoe MTBE Free
What is MTBE?
MTBE, a gasoline additive, is increasingly found In California
lakes, streams and groundwater. It has contaminated water in almost
every one of the 50 states, the EPA is expected to report In a study
this summer.
Contamination by MTBE is a serious threat to South Tahoe's drinking
water sources, and the issue demands attention now. Our drinking water
is safe, but as long as MTBE is present in gasoline, our wells are at
tremendous risk.
MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, is an oxygen-rich gasoline
additive. Beginning in 1991, the Federal EPA required oil companies to
use additives to reduce automobile emissions, and MTBE was the
additives of choice in California.
Is MTBE contaminating Tahoe's groundwater?
Yes. Water suppliers nationwide are now beginning to test their
drinking water sources for MTBE, but as more testing is done, more
contamination is found. The South Tahoe Public Utility District was
among the first to test for the presence of MTBE, beginning in 1996.
In the summer of 1998, ten of the District's 34 drinking water
wells were turned off due to the presence of MTBE in nearby plumes or,
in three cases, because MTBE had reached the wells.
Following, a vigilant action plan, and at the cost of several
hundreds of thousands of dollars, the District is able to provide MTBE-
free drinking water to its customers by turning off vulnerable wells
and re-directing water supplies from clean wells.
Where does MTBE come from?
All eyes have been focused on old underground tanks that service
stations used to store their gasoline supplies. But we are now finding
that, even after the old tanks are replaced by new, double-hulled,
fiberglass tanks, MTBE is still escaping. In short, it seems that the
new tank systems are no guarantee against contamination.
Is MTBE a health threat?
Research on potential health effects is ongoing, and the District
supports such research, but the real problem is that MTBE's taste and
odor makes contaminated drinking water unacceptable. MTBE has an
unpleasant taste and odor--similar to turpentine--and is identifiable
when concentrations reach 2 to 15 parts per billion.
MTBE has no known acute (immediate) health effects at levels that
people would be exposed to, if a person could drink water wish MTBE in
it. It is relatively new substance found in ground water, however, and
has not been subjected to extensive testing for chronic (long term)
health effects. There is some evidence that, at high lifelong
exposures, it is a possible carcinogen.
Is the drinking water in South Lake Tahoe safe?
Yes. The South Tahoe PUD is taking every precaution to ensure the
safety of its drinking water, and has implemented even more stringent
standards than is required by state and Federal Government. The U.S.
EPA recommends that ``keeping concentrations in the range of 20 to 40
[parts per billion] of water or below'' will avert unpleasant taste
effects and will protect consumers from potential health effects. The
State of California has set an ``action level'' of 35 parts per billion
to protect against adverse health effects. It is anticipated that
California will be making state standards even tougher.
No drinking water from the South Tahoe PUD has approached these
levels. Aggressively protecting the water supplies the District takes a
precautionary approach and shuts down wells that pose a problem before
MTBE destroys our water sources.
What Is Being Done?
The vulnerability of South Tahoe's drinking water sources demands a
vigilant approach, and the District is taking a strong stand, fighting
to remove the sources of contamination.
Unfortunately, the South Tahoe PUD, like many water suppliers, has
no enforcement powers against polluters. But the District is fighting
for regulatory action and legislation.
The bottom line is that the South Tahoe Public Utility District
will do everything in its power to protect Tahoe's drinking water.
______
[From The Sacramento Bee, Letters to the Editor]
MTBE In Gasoline
Dean Walters erred in his July 29 column (``Cal-EPA is not finished
work'') when he said the Air Resources Board ordered the use of the
additive MTBE in gasoline. The board has never required or even
certified the use of MTBE. Those actions were taken at the Federal
level. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency certified MTBE as a
gasoline additive, and a Federal law approved by Congress required the
use of MTBE or similar additives in most California gasoline, including
all Sacramento gasoline.
Walters wrongly cites MTBE contamination of water as an example of
a lack of coordination among regulators. In fact, California agencies
have put together the nation's most comprehensive and coordinated MTBE-
monitored effort. In contrast, U.S. EPA--which is responsible for
protecting the nation's air and water quality--opposes California's
efforts to change the Federal law that led to the widespread use of
MTBE. Just who needs better coordination?
John D. Dunlap, Chairman,
Air Resources Board, Sacramento.
______
[From The Sacramento Bee, Letters to the Editor]
Re: ``MTBE in gasoline,'' letter, August 20: The South Tahoe Public
Utility District was delighted to see the letter from the ARB chairman
declaring, ``California agencies have put together the nation's most
comprehensive and coordinated MTBE-monitoring effort.''
In South Tahoe, where 10 of 34 drinking water wells are out of
commission because of MTBE, the ``monitoring'' wells are, for the most
part, our drinking water wells. This is clearly not acceptable, and we
are looking for funds to develop a monitoring system that would detect
contamination before it impacts our drinking water. Perhaps Dunlap
could extend his comprehensive and coordinated'' monitoring to Tahoe.
We would also like to see a letter from Dunlap, informing oil
companies that they can use ethanol instead of MTBE in areas where MTBE
is destroying underground aquifer.
Dawn Forsythe, Public Affairs Officer.
South Tahoe Public Utility District South Lake Tahoe.
______
South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District,
South Lake Tahoe, CA, September 4, 1998.
Mike Kenny, Executive Officer,
California Air Resources Board,
Sacramento, CA 95819.
Dear Mr. Kenny: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the the
South Tahoe Public Utility District, we extend an invitation to your
agency to explain the ARB's rules and regulations pertaining to the use
of oxygenates in gasoline, and what the oil companies must do,
practically, to conform to your requirements. Specifically, we invite
the agency to a meeting with our staff on the morning of September 17,
with a public presentation it our Board Meeting at 2 pm that afternoon.
As you are aware, we have a tremendous problem with MTBE
contamination of our aquifers, and we are desperate for solutions.
Given the history of tank systems that allegedly meet the new standards
we strongly believe that as long as MTBE is in the gasoline, our
aquifers continue to be at risk.
We have talked to Federal regulatory and legislative people, state
regulators, state legislators, ethanol industry representatives,
operators of terminals, Nevada air quality officials, and hordes of
researchers--and I have yet to hear definitive answers to two simple
questions: 1) Why are we deliberately putting water resources at risk;
and A) how do we get MTBE out of gasoline in Tahoe? Your agency's
perspective on these questions would be most enlightening. Of course,
if you have the definitive answers, it would be stupendous.
We have written to Crawford Tuttle asking for scientific
justification for gasoline additives in Tahoe, and I am assuming that
he won't mind it I share that letter with you. Our basic concern is
that our aquifers are being destroyed by a contamination that is
``solving'' a non-existent problem.
Thank you for considering our situation and our request. If you
accept our invitation, please ask your staff to coordinate with Dawn
Forsythe, our public affairs officer She can be reached at 530-544-6474
ext. 208.
Sincerely,
Robert Baer, Control Manager.
______
South Tahoe Public Utility District,
South Lake Tahoe, CA, March 19, 1998.
Honorable Pete Wilson, Governor,
State of California,
Capitol Building, First Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) in (gasoline
Dear Governor Wilson: The South Tahoe Public Utility District is
very concerned about MTBE in its water supplies. MTBE has been detected
in three of the District's water wells and threatens two others.
The mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leaking underground
storage tank systems, other gasoline storage and distribution systems,
gasoline-powered water craft storm water runoff, and rainfall washout.
Once in the water supply, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove.
MTBE is soluble and mobile, and it is persistent in the subsurface
environment. The health effects of MTBE are not completely understood,
but MTBE is a possible carcinogen and has a low taste and odor
threshold. The most effective way to prevent additional impacts to
water supplies and public health from MERE is to cease its use as an
additive to motor vehicle fuel.
The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District
urges you to employ your executive powers to achieve removal of MTBE
and other ether oxygenates as additives to motor vehicle fuels in the
State of California in order to protect the State's valuable water
resources. The South Tahoe Public Utility urges you to work with
appropriate authorities at the Federal level to achieve this
prohibition and to identify alternative methods to achieve acceptable
air quality objectives.
If you or your staff has questions, please call Mr. Rick Hydrick,
Manager of Water Operations, at (530) 544-6474, extension Z38.
Sincerely,
James R. Jones, President, Board of Directors.
______
South Tahoe, CA, Resolution No. 2681-98
a resolution of south tahoe public utility district entreating governor
pete wilson to protect the drinking water of south lake tahoe, by
prohibiting the use of mtbe in gasoline
Whereas, MTBE poses a serious threat to the drinking water of South
Tahoe by continuing to contaminate its sources of drinking water; and
Whereas, due to the vigilance of the South Tahoe Public Utility
District, our drinking water is safe, but as long as MTBE is present in
gasoline our wells are at risk; and
Whereas, MTBE's taste and odor makes contaminated drinking water
unacceptable; and
Whereas, citizens of this State have a right to demand that the
sources of drinking water he MTBE-free;
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the
South Tahoe Public Utility District hereby entreats Governor Pete
Wilson to take immediate action to prohibit the use of MTBE, as an
additive to gasoline.
Passed and Adopted at a duly held Regular Meeting of the Board of
Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District on the 16th day of
July, 1998:
______
South Lake Tahoe Chamber Commerce,
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96160, August 25, 1998.
Felicia Marcus,
U.S. EPA Region IX,
Policy and Management Division,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Dear Administrator Marcus: Last year the people of Lake Tahoe
witnessed a great outpouring of concern by a multitude of Federal
agencies, the EPA included. This concern manifested itself in a true
Federal commitment to preserving the clarity of Lake Tahoe. The
commitment will continue to be a primary factor in the preservation of
one of this country's most beautiful scenic areas. But there is an
insidious problem that demands everyone's immediate attention, now--
MTBE threatens the drinking water of South Lake Tahoe.
South Tahoe is more vocal than many localities about the threat to
its drinking water. While some may think that it's best for a Chamber
of Commerce to be silent, for fear of scaring our important tourist
market, our businesses strongly believe that, in the long term,
protecting our water resources is absolutely necessary to the future
viability of Tahoe as a tourist destination.
I understand the EPA Region IX will be deciding whether South
Tahoe's situation deserves Agency assistance--financial, technical,
legal, or a combination of all three. Our Chamber of Commerce urgently
requests any assistance you can provide.
Ultimately, however, we are finding that MTBE is a constant and
continual threat as long as it remains in gasoline sold in the Tahoe
Basin. As this contaminant moves toward the lake at 1 to 10 feet per
day, depending on the hydrogeology. it has the potential to undo all
our collective water quality efforts. Above all, please help us find a
way to prohibit the use of this contaminant in South Lake Tahoe.
Sincerely,
Duane Wallace, Executive Director.
______
South Tahoe Public Utility District,
South Lake Tahoe, CA, August 24, 1998.
Felicia Marcus,
U.S. EPA Region IX,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Dear Administrator Marcus: Over 50 years ago John Kennedy gave an
angry speech to his colleagues about the lack of congressional will to
address the housing crisis after the war. He ended his speech on note
of bitter resignation. ``I am going to have to go back to my district
Saturday, a district that sent probably more boys per family into this
last war than any in the country, and when they ask me if I was able to
get them any homes, I will have to answer, not a one--not a single
one.''
The Board of Directors and management of the South Tahoe Public
Utility District feel that same frustration about the apparent lack of
governmental will to address the MTBE crisis in South Tahoe.
We were heartened to receive a visit from three of your staff: Jane
Freeman, Laurie Williams and Steve Linder. I understand that they will
be submitting a report to Julie Anderson, with recommendations for the
agency to consider. I cannot emphasize enough how much we need the
Agency's help. When people ask if we were able to get EPA assistance on
any of our concerns, we don't want try answer as Kennedy did. We
desperately want to assure people that the U.S. EPA recognizes the
terrible impact that MTBE has on our drinking water sources and that
the Agency is confirming its recognition with the allocation of
resources to address the problem.
The 1996 National Drinking Water Program Redirection Strategy
states that ``last, but not least, EPA is looking to States,
communities and other stakeholders for the development of innovative
partnerships and approaches for protecting drinking water. The Agency
continues to welcome stakeholders' ideas.'' Especially in view of
California's lack of total commitment to groundwater protection, i.e.,
nonparticipation in the state revolving fund under the SDWA, an
innovative Federal-local partnership to protect Tahoe's drinking water
is more than appropriate. It is absolutely necessary.
Borrowing from Kennedy again, we want the word to go forth that EPA
is working with us to protect Tahoe's drinking water from MTBE.
Yours truly,
Bob Baer, General Manager.
______
South Tahoe Public Utility District,
South Lake Tahoe, CA, July 30, 1998.
Niloufar Glosson,
U.S. EPA,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Dear Niloufar: Please extend our gratitude to Administrator Marcus
for he attention to the tremendous MTBE problem we face in South Tahoe.
Every agency, board and elected official we have turned to has told us
that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing--and no one is
decisively exploring options that would actually protect our most
important resource. We're hearing marvelous statements of concern, but
we see no action.
We are aware that the EPA, through the National Center for
Environmental Assessment, is addressing the research strategy for
oxygenates in water (NCEA-98-1048). We appreciate and wholeheartedly
support, anything the EPA can do to facilitate or accelerate the
research needs addressed in that strategy.
We are in a critical situation, however, requiring immediate
action. We need three things:
1. The current leaks of MTBE must be stopped.
2. The current contamination must be remediated.
3. The future contamination must be prevented.
Stopping the Leaks
Althought the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Board has identified
responsible parties that, Lahontan says, are currently leaking, no
regulatory agency has the will and/or the ability to take steps
necessary to stop the leaks.
EPA needs to step in, assume control, and order the gas stations to
cease operations until the leaks are stopped.
Remediate the Contamination
We have two problems with the current remediation situation. In
most cases, no remediation is occurring (even after multiple Cleanup
and Abatement Orders by the regional water board), and in other cases
the ``remediation'' does not adequately protect drinking water sources.
EPA needs to provide immediate technical and/or financial
assistance to ensure that cleanup actions are completed in a timely
manner and are protective of drinking water sources. The South Tahoe
Public Utility District will likely be assuming regulatory and
enforcement authority by adopting a Groundwater Management Plan, as
authorized by CA AB3030, the Groundwater Management Act. EPA's
assistance is urgently sought.
Prevent Future Contamination
As long as MTBE is in the gasoline, our drinking water is at risk.
While we may be able to operate wells, keeping contamination within
health standards for a short amount of time, the water would become and
would continue to be undrinkable. MTBE hits suddenly and there is
little time to react with replacement wells or wellhead treatment.
Rather than face the problem after the contamination has destroyed a
well, we strongly believe in the precautionary principle.
EPA, using emergency authority, needs to prohibit the use of MTBE
in groundwater basin where the groundwater is the sole source of
drinking water and that groundwater is highly vulnerable to
contamination by MTBE, as evidenced by multiple and ongoing detections
in the source water. If EPA wants to do it at the request of a
constitutionally derived public agency, we hereby request it.
One thing further . . . We need an MTBE Summit at South Lake Tahoe,
bringing together all the parties at the local, State, and Federal
level who have some finger in the MTBE pie. We would welcome and
encourage EPA sponsorship and facilitation of such a summit (perhaps in
the manner that Dr. Lynn Goldman has conducted the EDSTAC process).
Of course, we are available and eager to provide you with all the
information you need.
Thank you again, for your agency's attention to this most urgent
matter.
Sincerely,
Dawn Forsythe, Public Affairs Officer.
______
San Diego County Board of Supervisors,
San Diego, CA, September 14, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The San Diego County Board of Supervisors
supports S. 1576, your legislation to allow California's cleaner-
burning regulation to apply in lieu of Federal formulated gasoline
requirements currently mandated in most of Southern California and the
Sacramento region.
S. 1576 would give California the flexibility to implement more
stringent standards without having to meet Federal regulations based on
the content of the gasoline. It would allow California to focus on an
``outcome'' based reformulated gasoline standard rather than content-
based Federal fuel requirements. This would be advantageous since
refiners would have the option to pursue different but equally
effective fuel formulations which result in the highest possible health
and environmental benefits for San Diego and other areas throughout
California. Additionally, they would be able to utilize the flexibility
built into the California program and avoid needless paperwork
requirements, resulting in lower production costs for California
gasoline and lower gas prices for consumers.
Please work with your colleagues in the Senate to expedite action
on S. 1576 or other legislation that would provide the flexibility to
pursue different but equally effective fuel formulations intended to
significantly improve Californians air quality.
Sincerely yours,
Greg Cox, Chairman.
______
East Bay Municipal Utility District,
Oakland, CA, April 15, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510-0504.
Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD), I am pleased to inform you that we support your S.
1576, which would provide that California's cleaner burning gasoline
regulations would apply in California in lieu of existing Federal
regulations as long as equivalent or greater reductions in emissions of
ozone-forming compounds and toxic air contaminants are achieved.
EBMUD is a local government agency responsible for providing water
service to approximately 12 million customers in 20 cities and 16
unincorporated communities in portions of Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, and wastewater treatment services for more than 600,000
customers in the East Bay.
We believe your S. 1576 would improve flexibility in how gasoline
is formulated while preserving the stringent minimum emission standards
in the Clean Air Act, so that gasoline refiners would have alternatives
to the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Your measure would
strike an important balance in ensuring high standards of air quality
while moving forward on alternative fuel formulations which may be less
threatening to human health and drinking water quality.
As you know, existing law results in overlapping application of the
state and Federal reformulated gasoline regulations. This creates a
substantially reduced opportunity for gasoline refiners to take
advantage of the flexibility in the California program's reformulation
rules without falling out of compliance with Federal regulations. As a
result, compliance with the Federal regulations is still required,
despite the fact that the California standards have demonstrated
achievement of equal or superior air quality benefits. Although the
Federal law and regulations do not require the use of MTBE
specifically, the Federal regulations do require the use of a fuel
oxygenate. MTBE has become the oxygenate of choice because of its high
octane rating, low production cost, and ability to readily mix with
other gasoline components.
We very much appreciate your leadership on this issue. Ensuring
that gasoline consumed in California is formulated in such a way that
there arc minimized threats to drinking water quality and continued
protection of air quality is an important public health and
environmental protection effort.
Randele Kanouse, Special Assistant to the General Manager, is
available to answer any questions you may have concerning our position
on S. 1576. Mr. Kanouse may be reached at (916) 443-6948.
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Diemer.
______
Statement of Santa Clara Valley Water District
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the water resource
management serving the wholesale water supply and flood protection
needs of the 1.6 million residents in Santa Clara County, California,
with its thriving Silicon Valley economy. In fulfilling its water
supply mission, SCVWD owns and operates ten reservoirs (total capacity
of approximately 163,000 acre feet), three water treatment plants
(total capacity 220 million gallons per day), and 393 acres of
groundwater recharge ponds. SCVWD is also responsible for protecting
water quality of its local groundwater basin that provides
approximately 50 percent of' the County's water supply needs.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District supports S. 1576 since it
would provide flexibility for California to meet air quality standards
without the need for problematic ether oxygenates such as Methyl
Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). We are very concerned with contamination
of our water supplies from the widespread use of MTBE.
SCVWD has been monitoring MTBE in its water sources for nearly 2
years and continues to find it. Monitoring of our imported supplies
from the Sacramento-San Francisco Bay-Delta has shown concentrations of
1-2 parts per billion (ppb). Monitoring has also shown concentrations
up to 23 ppb at three of our local surface water reservoirs where we
allow motor powered watercraft recreation.
Our greatest concern, however, is contamination of local
groundwater basins from leaking underground storage tanks. The SCVWD
operates a Leaking Underground Storage Tank Oversight Program (LUSTOP)
to assist State regulators in this area. Approximately 80 percent of
underground storage tanks sites that are listed as cases in our Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Oversight Program (LUSTOP) have monitored for
MTBE. About 74 percent (292 of 395) of the monitored sites are finding
MTBE, many at very high levels. The attached table shows the
concentration ranges for these leaking sites and 86 percent of these
cases show concentrations of MTBE: greater than the State Action Level
of 35 ppb. This phenomenal rate of MTBE contamination is in the shallow
groundwater aquifers. Our concern is that this contamination will
eventually impact water supply wells deeper in the aquifer. So far, one
public water supply well in the County has been impacted; however, the
source investigation of this impacted well depicts another problem with
MTBE. Because of its high mobility, MTBE plumes are very challenging to
define and cleanup since they are long and narrow. A very detailed
investigation of the local geology is required to assess the impact.
Two nearby gasoline stations have been identified as potential sources
of MTBE. Both have state-of-the-art, upgraded underground storage tank
systems, yet both are showing contamination. We are still investigating
if the tanks are actually leaking, or if these are previous releases.
Because of MTBE's mobility, we do not believe the current data set
fully represents the severity of MTBE contamination from leaking tanks
since this data was gathered from fixed monitoring stations at each
site.
The California Department of Health Services has a requirement to
promulgate a secondary drinking water standard for MTBE by July 1,
1998, and a primary standard by July 1, 1999. The Department of Health
Services has proposed a secondary standard of 5 ppb based on the taste
and odor threshold of the most sensitive individuals. This would be a
difficult standard to meet given the amount of MTBE currently entering
the environment. Regardless of the standard, we do not believe
consumers would accept a water supply that tastes and smells like
turpentine.
Several oil companies have publicly indicated they can meet air
quality emission standards without the addition of an oxygenate. This
would preclude the need for widespread use of MTBE.
Given the widespread contamination of the shallow groundwater
basins from leaking underground storage tanks, the mobility and
persistence of MTBE, and the probability of a stringent water quality
standard, we have serious concerns that large portions, or perhaps all
of our groundwater basins could become unusable as a water supply
source due to MTBE contamination. We feel this would be too great a
price to pay for improvements in air quality when those same
improvements could be obtained without oxygenates, or with non-ether
based oxygenates. That is why we support Senator Feinstein's bill as a
way to bring much needed flexibility to the system. We request your
careful consideration and thank you for the time.
______
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board,
Ventura, CA 93003, May 12, 1998.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The Ventura County Air Pollution Control
Board is pleased to support H.R. 630, the bill you are sponsoring in
the Senate to provide California greater authority over its clean air
program by allowing California's cleaner burning gasoline regulation to
apply in lieu of Federal reformulated gasoline regulations, as long as
these regulations achieve equivalent or greater reductions in emissions
of ozone-forming compounds and toxic air contaminants.
Refiners must now simultaneously implement California's cleaner
burning gasoline regulations and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's regulations for reformulated gasoline in most of Southern
California (including Ventura County) and Sacramento. This results in
regulatory duplication and overlap without any additional benefit in
air quality.
Our Board supports cost-effective regulations that meet clean air
goals. Elimination of this regulatory overlap will provide Californians
equal or better air quality at less cost.
Sincerely,
Susan K. Lacey, Chair.
______
Air Pollution Control Board Resolution Before the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Amador, State of California
In the matter of: Resolution Requesting and Supporting the ban of
the use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
Resolution No. 98-089
Whereas, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) is one of a group of
chemicals called fuel oxygenates that must be added to gasoline under
Federal and State regulations; and
Whereas, MTBE is airborne through car exhausts and other internal
combustion engines add it settles on our snow pack and roadways
insulating its way into our groundwater, rivers and streams, ultimately
gravitating into our drinking water impoundments; and
Whereas, the suspected carcinogen, MTBE, is beginning to appear in
California's drinking water storage impoundments and groundwater
supplies; and
Whereas, research indicates that fiberglass storage tanks installed
prior to 1990 will react with MTBE and ultimately leak into the ground
waters; and
Whereas, people can detect objectionable tastes and odors caused by
MTBE well below levels considered to pose a health risk; and
Whereas, threat to the public health of MTBE in our drinking water
is not an acceptable risk to endure for the small reduction in air
pollution gained by adding MTBE to our gasoline; and
Whereas, there appears to be other oxygenates to substitute for
MTBE.
Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Amador, State of California, that said Board does hereby request and
support the ban of the use of MTBE as a fuel oxygenate.
The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Amador at a regular meeting thereof,
held on the 10th day of March 1998.
______
City of Santa Monica, CA,
March 20, 1997.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your efforts to secure the
assistance of the United States Environmental Protection Agency on the
MTBE contamination of Santa Monica's drinking water. EPA's March 14
announcement that they will bring their enforcement power to bear was
indeed good news for our City.
We believe that what happens in Santa Monica will set the tone for
how the Nation handles this new threat to safe drinking water. EPA's
regulatory enforcement and technical expertise should quickly restore
Santa Monica's water and set proper precedent for the region and the
nation. Overall, the benefit is in the cumulative effect of a
coordinated enforcement strategy with local, state and Federal
authorities.
Thank you again for securing USEPA's strong involvement.
Sincerely,
Pam O'Connor, Mayor.
______
County of Lake, Board of Supervisors,
Lakeport, CA 95453, January 9, 1998.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein and Representative Bilbray: We are
requesting your assistance in a matter of significant importance to
California and Lake County, the passage of H.R. 630 introduced by
Congressman Brian Bilbray. Under this bill, the California cleaner
burning gasoline regulations would apply in California in lieu of the
Federal reformulated gasoline regulations as long as the California
regulations achieve equivalent or greater reductions in emissions of
ozone-forming compounds and toxic contaminants are not increased. Most
importantly, the California regulations would allow MTBE, a pollutant
of much concern to water agencies and the public, to be removed from
gasoline without giving up the environmental benefit needed for air
quality.
California has historically faced the most challenging and
intractable air pollution problems in the nation, and we have been
creative in our solutions. Presently for fuels standards in our state
the California and Federal standards are both applied.
Unfortunately, the overlapping applicability of the state and
Federal reformulated gasoline regulations substantially reduces the
extent to which refiners can take advantage of the flexibility built
into the California program. Refiners are required to comply with the
Federal Act even though the California predictive model shows that a
different formulation will achieve equivalent or greater air quality
benefits.
The greatest practical impact of H.R. 630 would involve gasoline
oxygenate requirements. The Federal regulations impose a year-round
minimum oxygen content standard of 2.0 weight percent. The California
regulations, on the other hand, allow refiners to use the predictive
model to reduce or eliminate the use of oxygenates outside California
Independent Petroleum Association the winter months as long as the
refiner's gasoline blend achieves toxics and ozone-forming emissions
benefits equivalent to the benefits from gasoline meeting otherwise
applicable California oxygen content standard of 1.9-2.2 weight
percent. This ability is particularly important concerning the presence
of MTBE in ground and recreational surface waters. It is necessary to
timely allow viable alternatives to MTBE, if equivalent performing
clean burning fuels are proposed by gasoline manufacturers. H.R. 630
would encourage a more publicly acceptable fuel and competitive market
for California.
H.R. 630 is crafted to assure that Californians can expect to have
their health protected. The California gasoline regulations have been
approved by the U.S. EPA as part of your State Implementation Plan, and
are thus federally enforceable. The California regulations would apply
in lieu of the Federal regulations only if they will achieve equivalent
or greater emissions reductions. This seems to be a most reasonable
approach to the benefit of all parties.
For the reasons above, as well as a need for encouraging clean
burning gasoline that is friendly to our water resources, the Lake
County Board of Supervisors requests your support for H.R. 630. It is
our understanding that Senator Feinstein will soon author a companion
bill in the Senate, and we ask that you also please support that
effort.
Thank you for your attention and anticipated support on this
matter.
Sincerely,
Louise Talley, Chairman,
Board of Supervisors and LCAQMD,
______
California Independent Petroleum Association,
Sacramento, CA, February 11, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein: The California Independent Petroleum
Association (CIPA) would like to express support for your legislation,
S. 1576. As you may know, CIPA is a non-profit trade association
representing approximately 500 companies involved in the exploration
and production of oil and natural gas in California.
California has had a long history of regulating fuels in the state
to improve air quality, predating the adoption of the Federal
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program under the 1990 amendments to the
Clean Air Act. Today, refiners and marketers of fuels in California
find themselves having to comply with conflicting and duplicative
Federal and state requirements. This adds complexity and cost to
producing California RFG, with absolutely no commensurate benefit to
the environment.
Contrary to the Federal RFG program, the California RFG program
allows refiners to develop the most cost-effective formulation of
gasoline, based on performance in reducing emissions. California RFG
has been demonstrated to out-perform Federal RFG in reducing emissions,
and the California program is federally enforceable as part of
California's State Implementation Program.
S. 1576 would eliminate the overlap in California between the state
and Federal programs, while neither mandating nor banning any
formulation or components used in making California RFG. One of CIPA's
main objectives is to promote policies that allows flexibility for the
private sector to develop the most innovative manner to achieve the
standards set by government. S. 1576 encourages such innovation while
maintaining clean air standards.
We have contacted the California delegation expressing support for
S. 1576 and H.R. 630 requesting they cosponsor this legislation.
If we can provide additional assistance on this matter, please do
note hesitate to contact me at (805) 395-5318.
Sincerely,
David Gilbert,
Director of Environmental and Public Affairs.
______
March 6, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein: We, the undersigned, would like to express
our strong support for S. 1576. It would eliminate superfluous Federal
requirement for gasoline marketed in California as long as California
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) has equivalent or better emission reduction
performance relative to Federal RFG.
California has had a long history of regulating fuels in the state
to improve air quality, predating adoption of the Federal RFG program
under the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Today, refiners and
marketers of fuels in California find themselves having to comply with
conflicting and duplicate Federal and state requirements. This adds
complexity and cost to producing California RFG with absolutely no
commensurate benefit to the environment.
S. 1576 would eliminate the overlap in California between the state
and Federal programs. It will provide greater flexibility in
formulating and producing California RFG, while still assuring that the
high standards for reducing emissions are maintained. These state
requirements are mandated by California RFG regulations which are
federally enforceable as part of California's State Implementation
Plan. We applaud your leadership in introducing this important
legislation and urge Congress to enact this bill into law.
Doug Henderson, President,
Western States Petroleum Association.
Philip T. Cavanaugh, V.P. Federal Relations,
Chevron Corporation.
James C. Pruitt, V.P. Federal Government Affairs,
Texaco, Inc.
Evelyn Gibson, Government Relations Director,
California Independent Oil Marketers Association.
Steve Ward, V.P. Government Affairs,
Shell Oil Company.
James J. Rouse, V.P. Washington Office,
Exxon Corporation.
R. Timothy Columbus, Counsel,
Society for Independent Gasoline Marketers of America.
Ann Farner Miller, V.P. Government Relations,
Tosco Corporation.
Sandra G. Swirski, Manager, Federal Government Relations,
Mobil Corporation.
______
California Independent Petroleum Association,
Sacramento, CA, January 23, 1998.
Honorable Duncan Hunter,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Hunter: The California Independent Petroleum
Association (CIPA) would like to express support for H.R. 630. As you
may know, CIPA is a non-profit trade association representing
approximately 500 companies involved in the exploration and production
of oil and natural gas in California.
California has had a long history of regulating fuels in the state
to improve air quality, predating the adoption of the Federal
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program under the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. Today, refiners and marketers of fuels in California find
themselves having to comply with conflicting and duplicative Federal
and state requirements. This adds complexity and cost to producing
California RFG, with absolutely no commensurate benefit to the
environment.
Contrary to the Federal RFG program, the California RFG program
allows refiners to develop the most cost-effective formulation of
gasoline, based on performance in reducing emissions. California RFG
has been demonstrated to out-perform Federal RFG in reducing emissions,
and the California program is federally enforceable as part of
California's State Implementation Program.
H.R. 630 would eliminate the overlap in California between the
state and Federal programs, while neither mandating nor banning any
formulation or components used in making California RFG. One of CIPA's
main objectives is to promote policies that allows flexibility for the
private sector to develop the most innovative manner to achieve the
standards set by government. h.r. 630 encourages such innovation while
maintaining clean air standards.
If you have not already cosponsored H.R 630, please contact
Congressman Bilbray to express your support for this vital bill.
Sincerely,
David Gilbert,
Director of Environmental and Public Affairs.
______
California Independent Oil Marketers Association,
Sacramento, CA, October 23, 1997.
Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on Commerce,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bliley: The California Independent Oil Marketers
Association (CIOMA) strongly supports H.R. 630 (Bilbray), pertaining to
reformulated gasoline regulations. We urge the committee to pass the
bill in order to simplify these regulations and to eliminate the
mandatory oxygenate requirement for California reformulated gasoline.
HR. 630 would simplify the transport and storage of gasoline in
California by allowing petroleum marketers, and the suppliers who
refine reformulated gasoline in California, to meet a single set of
regulations governing the composition of gasoline, rather than
complying with both Federal and state regulations. Currently, the two
sets of regulations conflict to some degree, resulting in some areas of
the state being required to use a different form of gasoline than other
parts of the state. The Federal requirements for these areas result in
the need for additional transportation and storage of these products
which add to the cost of this fuel. In addition, the Federal
requirement for a minimum oxygen volume in gasoline also has raised
issues regarding the public health impacts and environmental benefit of
reformulated gasoline. California reformulated gasoline regulations do
not have this requirement.
The California Independent Oil Marketers Association (CIOMA)
represents approximately 500 petroleum marketing businesses who sell
gasoline to agricultural government, and commercial consumers. In
addition. our members own and operate numerous retail gasoline service
stations and cardlock systems. Gasoline is an important part of our
members' businesses. CIOMA has worked very hard with the California Air
Resources Board, the California Energy Commission. and the major oft
companies to ensure public acceptance of California reformulated
gasoline and its environmental and health benefits.
We urge members of your committee to support H.R, 630 in order to
increase the flexibility refiners and downstream fuel sellers, like our
members, have in meeting the regulations for reformulated gasoline.
H.R. 630 reduces duplicative regulations that result in no
environmental benefit as well as numerous reporting and recordkeeping
requirements with which many of our members must comply. In short. H.R.
530 would permit California reformulated gasoline regulations to
supersede Federal regulations only if California's regulations achieve
the same or greater emissions reductions from ozone-depleting compounds
and toxic air contaminants. This measure provides the petroleum
Industry the flexibility it needs to create the cleanest gasoline
available today while protecting both public health and the
environment. Once again. we urge your support of the measure. Please
contact me at 916-646-5999 if you have any questions about CIOMA's
position.
Sincerely,
Evelyn Parker Gibson, Government Relations Director.
______
California State Senate,
Office of Senator Richard L. Mountjoy,
Sacramento, CA, September 14, 1998.
Senator John Chafee, Chairman,
Committee on Environment & Public Works,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Chafee: This is to express strong support for S. 1576,
which will provide California greater flexibility in meeting Federal
emission requirements as long as reformulated gasoline meets equivalent
or greater reductions in emissions of ozone forming compounds and toxic
air contaminants.
When the chemical MTBE was added to California's gasoline, we were
not told that it would threaten our water supply. We were not told that
MTBE could jeopardize our health.
California depends heavily on water and is very sensitive about
contamination of this vital resource. MTBE is threatening that precious
resource.
Water districts across California are now testing for MTBE. This
chemical has been detected in water supplies across California, raising
concerns of public officials statewide. MTBE has been found in public
drinking water supplies. in private drinking water wells, and in
groundwater resources, including lakes and reservoirs MTBE has been
detected in Anderson Reservoir, Lake Berryessa. Calero Reservoir,
Camanche Reservoir, Canyon Lake, Castaic Lake Reservoir, Cherry
Reservoir, Clear Lake, Combie Reservoir, Coyote Reservoir, Donner Lake,
Don Pedro Reservoir, El Capitan Reservoir, Lake Havasu, Lake Merced,
Lake Skinner, Lake Tahoe, Modesto Reservoir, Pardee Reservoir, Perris
Lake, Pyramid Lake. Rollins Lake, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, San
Pablo Reservoir, San Vicente Reservoir, Scotts Flat Lake, Shasta Lake,
and Whiskeytown Lake Reservoir.
Drinking water resources which have been contaminated with MTBE
include wells at Cal State Polytechnic University at Pomona, Callegueas
Municipal Water District. Elmira, Fruitridge Vista Water District.
Glennville, Great Oaks Water Company, Healdsburg, Jurupa, City of Los
Angeles, Marysville, the Presidio in San Francisco, San Bernardino, San
Diego, Santa Monica, Sebastopol, and South Lake Tahoe.
Public officials across California are expressing concerns about
MTBE. In fact, resolutions have been sent to California's Governor Pete
Wilson urging him to ban the use of MTBE by the Amador County Board of
Supervisors, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, the cities of
Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas,
Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Santa Clara, Zone 7 of Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Mesa Consolidated Water
District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the South Tahoe Public
Utility District. The leaders of these communities and water districts
understand the danger of continued use of MTBE. I expect other cities,
counties, and water districts will add their names to this growing
list. Copies of their resolutions are enclosed.
It takes a very small amount of MTBE to contaminate a large body of
water. One water official told me that four gallons of MTBE will
pollute one square mile to a depth of 30 feet. The gas we use contains
11 percent MTBE. This means for every gallon of gasoline in a car,
approximately one pint is MTBE.
In the small Kern County town of Glennville, MTBE has contaminated
private drinking water wells. Water coming from the faucets soared as
high as 200,000 parts per billion. One family has been without water
for a month as officials make arrangements to provide a large tank with
water to supply the home. The town cafe, where levels of MTBE tested
above 4,000 parts per billion, is now closed. Other businesses have
also closed. People in Glennville have suffered a wide variety of
illnesses since the contamination occurred.
Recreational boating has been threatened as water districts begin
to limit or prohibit personal watercraft and boats with outboard motors
due to MTBE.
The potential for environmental damage is chilling. In the State of
Maine, one car overturned spilling gasoline containing MTBE. To date,
that one car has been responsible for the contamination of 28 private
drinking water wells! Also in Maine, children in one school were given
bottled water when MTBE traveled to the school's drinking water well
from the parking area.
Once in our water, MTBE is difficult and extremely expensive to
remove. How do we remove MTBE from Lake Tahoe where it has been
detected 100 feet below the surface? How do we remove the MTBE from
Glennville or Santa Monica? Science does not seem to have the answer of
how to remove this chemical. which does not biodegrade. Will MTBE? with
its high water solubility, get into fruits and vegetables that have
been irrigated with MTBE laced water? Science does not yet know.
When the water under homes and businesses become polluted with
MTBE, it can effect property values. In Glennville, CA, where private
wells have suffered extensive MTBE contamination, the assessor has
lowered home values.
In addition to polluting our water, there are health concerns
associated with MTBE. Studies have shown MTBE causes cancer in animals,
including lymphoma, leukemia, liver cancer, kidney cancer, and
testicular cancer. A 1997 study by Dr. Nachman Brautbar concluded that
MTBE destroys human white blood cells and is linked to auto-immune
disease. Studies have also linked human exposure to MTBE with nausea,
vomiting, muscle aches, eye irritation, rashes, fatigue, dizziness,
sore throats, and coughs. MTBE is absorbed through the skin when
showering, or bathing.
MTBE was added to our gasoline in an effort to clean our air.
Enclosed is a May 12, 1997, editorial from the Oil and Gas Journal
which states that MTBE makes gasoline burn dirtier, which certainly is
contrary to the goals of the clean air program.
Every day that MTBE is used, the purity of our water is further
jeopardized. I urge you to approve S. 1576 so California can clean its
air and protect its water.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Mountjoy, Senator, 29th District.
______
Resolution Before the Board of Supervisors of the County of Amador,
State of California
In the matter of: Resolution requesting and supporting the ban of
the use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)--Resolution No. 98-089
Whereas, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) is one of a group of
chemicals called fuel oxygenates that must be added to gasoline under
Federal and State regulations; and
Whereas, MTBE is airborne through car exhausts and other internal
combustion engines and it settles on our snow pack and roadways
insulating its way into our groundwater, rivers and streams, ultimately
gravitating into our drinking water impoundments; and
Whereas, the suspected carcinogen, MTBE, is beginning to appear in
California's drinking water storage impoundments and groundwater
supplies; and
Whereas, research indicates thee fiberglass storage tanks installed
prior to 1990 will react with MTBE and ultimately leak into the ground
Raters; and
Whereas, people can detect objectionable tastes and odors caused by
MTBE well below levels considered to pose a health risk; and
Whereas, threat to the public health of MTBE in our drinking water
is not an acceptable risk to endure for the small reduction in air
pollution gained by adding MTBE to our gasoline; and
Whereas, there appears to be ocher oxygenates to substitute for
MTBE.
Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Amador, State of California, that said Board does hereby request and
support the ban of the use of MTBE as a fuel oxygenate.
The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Amador at a regular meeting thereof,
held on the 10th day of March 1998, by the following vote:
______
Campbell, CA, Resolution No. 9422
Requesting the Governor and the Legislature to Prohibit the Use of
Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether in Gasoline
Whereas, Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) has been detected in
the Santa Clara Valley Water District's local reservoir, imported
water, dunking water treatment plant influent and effluent, and
groundwater; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at nearly 300 leaking underground
storage tank sites in Santa Clara County; and
Whereas, the mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leaking
underground storage tank systems, gasoline-powered watercraft, storm
water runoff, and rainfall washout; and
Whereas, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in Me
water supply; and
Whereas, MTBE is water soluble, mobile in soil, and persistent in
the water cycle; and
Whereas, MTBE is a possible human carcinogen.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of
Campbell that the City Council hereby urges a prohibition on the use of
MTBE, or any other ether oxygenate, as an additive to motor vehicle
fuels.
Be It Further Resolved that the City Council urges the Governor to
employ his executive powers to achieve removal of MTBE and other ether
oxygenates as additive to motor vehicle fuels in the State of
California in order to protect the State's valuable water resources,
and urges the Governor to work with appropriate authorizes at the
Federal level to achieve prohibition and to identify alternative
methods to achieve acceptable air quality objectives.
Passed and Adopted, 1st day of September 1998.
______
City of Milpitas,
Milpitas, CA 95035, September 3, 1998.
Honorable Pete Wilson, Governor,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Subject: Resolution Urging a Prohibition on the Use of MTBE in
Gasoline
Dear Governor Wilson: On September 1, 1998, the City Council of the
City of Milpitas adopted Resolution No. 6810 urging you to employ your
executive powers to prohibit the use of Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether
(MTBE) and other ether oxygenates in gasoline in California. A copy of
the Resolution is attached.
The City of Milpitas relies on local groundwater aquifers to supply
over 40 percent of the water needs of its customers. Contamination of
those groundwater supplies by MTBE or other ether oxygenates would
create a very serious water quality problem, which would be extremely
expensive to correct. The City's water customers, which include some of
the largest electronic firms in the world, rely on high quality water
for human consumption as well as industrial use.
Your efforts to prohibit the use of MTBE are appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Henry Manayan, Mayor.
______
Milpitas, CA, Resolution No. 6810
a resolution of the city council of the city of milpitas requesting the
governor to prohibit the use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether or other
ether oxygenates in gasoline
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Milpitas,
California (``City'') as follows:
Whereas, Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (``MTBE'') represents a threat
to groundwater and surface water supplies in California; and
Whereas, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in
the water supply; and
Whereas, MTBE is highly soluble in water, shows a high degree of
mobility in soils and persistence in the water and has a very low taste
and odor threshold; and
Whereas, although the health effects of MTBE are not well known, it
is a possible human carcinogen; and
Whereas, the City is responsible for developing and maintaining a
safe, healthful, potable and reliable water supply for the more than
62,000 residents and water customers of the City; and
Whereas, the City's objectives include water quality protection and
enhancement; and
Whereas, the City relies upon groundwater to supply the water needs
of some of its customers; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at nearly 300 leaking underground
storage tank sites in Santa Clara County; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at very low levels in at least one
drinking water well at a location in the Santa Clara Valley not within
the City; and
Whereas, the mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leading
underground storage tanks, other gasoline storage and distribution
systems, gasoline-powered water craft, storm water runoff, and rainfall
washout; and
Whereas, to protect the public health and welfare the California
Department of Health Services is in the process of promulgating a
Maximum Contaminant Level for MTBE in drinking water.
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the City Council of the City of
Milpitas urges a prohibition on the use of MTBE or any other ether
oxygenate as an additive to gasoline within the State of California.
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Council of the City of
Milpitas urges the Governor to employ his executive powers to achieve
removal of MTBE and other ether oxygenates as additives to motor
vehicle fuels in the Sate of California in order to protect the State's
valuable water resources, and to work with the appropriate authorities
at the Federal level to achieve this prohibition and to identify
alternative methods to achieve acceptable air quality objectives.
Passed and Adopted this 1st day of September, 1998.
______
Monte Sereno, CA, Resolution No. 1868
a resolution of the city council of the city of monte sereno requesting
the governor and the legislature to prohibit the use of methyl
tertiary-butyl ether or other ether oxygenates in motor fuel
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno
California (``City''), as follows:
Whereas, Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (``MTBE'') represents a threat
to ground water and surface water supplies in California; and,
Whereas, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in
the water supply; and,
Whereas, MTBE is highly soluble in water. shows a high degree of
mobility in soils and persistence in the water and has a very low taste
and odor threshold; and,
Whereas, although the health effects of MTBE are not well known, it
is a possible human carcinogen; and,
Whereas, the City is responsible for developing and maintaining a
safe, healthful, potable and reliable water supply for the more than
3000 residents and water customers of the City; and,
Whereas, the City's objectives include water quality protection and
enhancement; and,
Whereas, the City relies upon ground water to supply the water
needs of the majority of it's customers; and,
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at nearly 300 leaking underground
storage tank sites in Santa Clara County: and.
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at very low levels in at least one
drinking water well at a location in the Santa Clara Valley not within
the City; and,
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at very low ground levels in
treated water purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water District by
the City for the distribution to some of its residents: and,
Whereas, the mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leaking
underground storage tanks. other gasoline storage and distribution
systems. gasoline-powered water craft, storm water runoff. and rainfall
washout; and,
Whereas, to protect the public health and welfare the California
Department of Health Services is in the process of promulgating a
Maximum Containment Level for MTBE in drinking water:
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of
Monte Sereno, California, That said City Council hereby urges a
prohibition on the use of MTBE or any other ether oxygenate as an
additive to motor filets within the State of California.
Be It Further Resolved,, the City Council of the City of Monte
Sereno urges the Governor to employ his executive powers, and the
Legislature to adopt laws to achieve removal of MTBE and other ether
oxygenates as additives to motor fuels in the state of California in
order to protect the State's valuable water resources, and urges the
Governor and the Legislature to work with the appropriate authorities
at the Federal level to achieve this prohibition and to identify
alternative methods to achieve acceptable air quality objectives.
Passed and Adopted this 21st day of July 1998.
______
Morgan Hill, CA, Resolution No. 5213
a resolution of the city council of the city of morgan hill requesting
the governor and legislature to prohibit the use of methyl tertiary-
butyl ether or other ether oxygenates in motor fuel.
Whereas, Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (``MTBE'') represents a
thereat to ground water and surface water supplies in California; and
Whereas, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in
the water supply; and
Whereas, MTBE is highly soluble in water, shows a high degree of
mobility in soils and persistence in the water and has a very low taste
and odor threshold; and
Whereas, although the health effects of MTBE are not well known, it
is a possible human carcinogen; and
Whereas, the City is responsible for developing and maintaining a
safe, healthful, potable and reliable water supply for the more than
30,786 residents and water customers of the City; and
Whereas, the City's objectives include water quality protection and
enhancement; and
Whereas, the City relies upon ground water to supply the water
needs of the majority of its customers; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at nearly 300 leaking underground
storage tank sites in Santa Clara County; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at very low levels in at least one
drinking water well at a location in the Santa Clara Valley not within
the City; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at very low levels in treated water
purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water District by the City for
the distribution to some of its residents; and
Whereas, the mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leaking
underground storage tanks, other gasoline storage and distribution
systems, gasoline-powered water craft, storm water runoff, and rainfall
washout; and
Whereas, to protect the public health and welfare the California
Department of Health Services is in the process of promulgating a
Maximum Contaminant Level for MTBE in drinking water; now
Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Morgan
Hill that said City Council hereby urges a prohibition on the use of
M]BE or any other ether oxygenate as an additive to motor fuels within
the State of California.
And Be It Further Resolved that the City Council of the City of
Morgan Hill urges the Governor to employ his executive powers, and the
Legislature to adopt laws, to achieve removal of MTBE and other either
oxygenates as additives to motor fuels in the State of California in
order to protect the State's valuable water resources, and urges the
Governor and the Legislature to work with the appropriate authorities
at the Federal level to achieve this prohibition and to identify
alternative methods to achieve acceptable air quality objectives.
Passed and Adopted by the City Council of Morgan Hill at a Regular
Meeting held on the 5th day of August, 1998.
______
City of Santa Clara,
Santa Clara, CA, 30 June 1998
Hon. Richard Mountjoy,
California State Senate,
State Capitol Room 4062,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Subject: Resolution Urging a Prohibition on the Use of MTBE
Dear Senator Mountjoy: On 23 June 1998 the City Council of the City
of Santa Clara adopted Resolution 6456 urging the Legislature to enact
laws to prohibit the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and
other ether oxygenates in motor fuels in California. A copy of the
Resolution is attached.
The City of Santa Clara relies on local groundwater aquifers to
supply over 65 percent of the water needs of its customers.
Contamination of those groundwater supplies by MTBE or other ether
oxygenates would create a very serious water quality problem, extremely
expensive to correct. The City's water customers, which include some of
the largest electronics firms in the world, rely on high quality water
for human consumption as well as industrial use.
Your efforts to prohibit the use of MTBE are appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Judy Nadler, Mayor,
Jennifer Sparacino, City Manager.
______
Santa Clara, CA, Resolution No. 6456
a resolution of the city council of the city of santa clara requesting
the governor and the legislature to prohibit the use of methyl
tertiary-butyl ether or other ether oxygenates in motor fuel
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Santa Clara,
California (``City''), as follows:
Whereas, Methyl tertiary-butyl either (``MTBE'') represents a
threat to Round water and surface water supplies in California; and,
Whereas, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in
the water supply; and,
Whereas, MTBE is highly soluble in water, shows a high degree of
mobility in soils and persistence in the water and has a very low taste
and odor threshold; and
Whereas, although the health effects of MTBE are not well known, it
is a possible human carcinogen; and,
Whereas, the City is responsible for developing and maintaining a
safe, healthful, potable and reliable water supply for the more than
100,300 residents and water customers of the City; and,
Whereas, the City's objectives include water quality protection and
enhancement; and,
Whereas, the City relies upon of its customers; and, ground water
to supply the water needs of the majority; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at nearly 300 leaking underground
storage tank sites in Santa Clara County; and,
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at very low levels in at least one
drinking water well at a location in the Santa Clara Valley not within
the City; and,
Whereas, MTBE has been detected at very low levels in treated water
purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water District by the City for
the distribution to some of its residents; and,
Whereas, the mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leaking
underground storage tanks, other gasoline storage and distribution
systems, gasoline-powered water craft, storm water runoff, and rainfall
washout; and,
Whereas, to protect the public health and welfare the California
Department of Health Services is in the process of promulgating a
Maximum Contaminant Level for MTBE in drinking water:
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clara, California, that said City Council hereby urges a
prohibition on the use of MTBE or any other ether oxygenate as an
additive to motor fuels within the State of California.
Be It Further Resolved,, the City Council of the City of Santa
Clara urges the Governor to employ his executive powers, and the
Legislature to adopt laws, to achieve removal of MTBE and other ether
oxygenates as additives to motor fuels in the State of California in
order to protect the State's valuable water resources, and urges the
Governor and the Legislature to work with the appropriate authorities
at the Federal level to achieve this prohibition and to identify
alternative methods to achieve acceptable air qualify objectives.
______
Santa Clara County Resolution Adopted May 12, 1998
Whereas, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors supports
efforts to repeal the Federal requirement that gasoline contain
oxygenates while maintaining air quality standards; and
Whereas, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors supports
effort at the state level to eliminate MTBE from fuel; and
Whereas, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors supports
continued reseal into the public heals impacts of MTBE In drinking
water; and
Whereas, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors supports
efforts to maintain air quality standards so state and Federal
transportation funds linked to air quality are not put in jeopardy; and
Whereas, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Supports
Legislation; including H.R. 630 (Bilbray), S. 1576 (Feinstein), SJR 36
(Johannassen), SB 19 (Mountjoy); and opposes AB 2439 (Bower);
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved that the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors is actively supporting measures remove or limit the level
of MTBE in the water supply.
______
Santa Clara Valley Water District Resolution No. 98-10
requesting governor pete wilson to prohibit the use of methyl tertiary-
butyl ether in gasoline
Whereas, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is
responsible for managing water resources in Santa Clara County; and
Whereas, the District provides wholesale water supply for the more
than 1.6 million residents of Santa Clara County; and
Whereas, Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) has been detected in
the District's local reservoir, Vapored water, drinking water treatment
plant influent and effluent, and groundwater; and
Whereas, MTBE has been at nearly 300 leaking underground storage
tank sites in Santa Clara County; and
Whereas, the mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leaking
underground storage tank systems, other gasoline storage and
distribution systems, gasoline-powered watercraft, storm water runoff,
and rainfall washout; and
Whereas, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in
the water supply; and
Whereas, MTBE is soluble, mobile, and persistent in the water
cycle; and
Whereas, MTBE is a possible human carcinogen and has a low taste
and odor threshold; and
Whereas, the District's objectives include water quality protection
and enhancement.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, by the Board of Directors of the
District that said Board hereby urges a prohibition on the use of MTBE,
or any other ether oxygenate, At an additive to motor vehicle fuels.
Be It Further Resolved,, that the Board of Directors urges the
Governor to employ his executive powers to achieve removal of MTBE and
other ether oxygenates as additives to motor vehicle fuels in the State
of California in order to protect the She's valuable water resources,
and urges the Governor to work with appropriate authorities at the
Federal level to achieve this prohibition and to identify alternative
methods to achieve acceptable air quality objectives.
Passed and Adopted by the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara
Valley Water District on February 17, 1998.
______
South Tahoe Public Utility District,
South Lake Tahoe, CA, March 19, 1998.
Honorable Pete Wilson, Governor,
State of California,
Capitol Building, First Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) in Gasoline
Dear Governor Wilson: The South Tahoe Public Utility District is
very concerned about MTBE in its water supplies. MTBE has been detected
in three of the District's water wells and threatens two others.
The mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leaking underground
storage tank systems, other gasoline storage and distribution systems,
gasoline-powered water craft, storm water runoff, and rainfall washout.
Once in the water supply, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove.
MTBE is soluble and mobile, and it is persistent in the subsurface
environment. The health effects of MTBE are not completely understood,
but MTBE is a possible carcinogen and has a low taste and odor
threshold. The most effective way to prevent additional impacts to
water supplies and public health from MTBE is to cease its use as an
additive to motor vehicle fuel.
The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District
urges you to employ your executive powers to achieve removal of MTBE
and other ether oxygenates as additives to motor vehicle fuels in the
State of California in order to protect the State's valuable water
resources. The South Tahoe Public Utility urges you to work with
appropriate authorities at the Federal level to achieve this
prohibition and to identify alternative methods to achieve acceptable
air quality objectives.
If you or your staff has questions, please call Mr. Rick Hydrick,
Manager of Water Operations, at (530) 544-6474, extension 238.
Sincerely,
James R. Jones, President, Board of Directors.
______
South Lake Tahoe, CA, Resolution No. 2669-98
a resolution of the board of directors of the south tahoe public
utility district urging the governor of the state of california to
employ his executive powers to achieve the removal of mtbe and other
oxygenates as additives to gasoline in the state of california
Whereas, Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) has been detected in
water supplies within the service boundaries of the South Tahoe Public
Utility District; and
Whereas, MTBE has been detected in water supplies in three drinking
water wells and threatens two others within the service boundaries of
the South Tahoe Public Utility District; and
Whereas, the mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leaking
underground storage tank systems, other gasoline storage and
distribution systems, gasoline-powered water craft, storm water runoff,
and rainfall washout; and
Whereas, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in
the water supply; and
Whereas, MTBE is soluble, mobile, and persistent in the water
cycle; and
Whereas, MTBE is a possible human carcinogen and has a low taste
and odor threshold; and
Whereas, it is important to protect water quality and public
health.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Board of Directors of the
South Tahoe Public Utility District hereby urges a prohibition on the
use of MTBE, or any other ether oxygenate, as an additive to gasoline.
Now, Therefore, Be It Further Resolved, that the Board of Directors
of the South Tahoe Public Utility District urges the Governor to employ
his executive powers to achieve removal of MTBE and other ether
oxygenates as additives to gasoline in the State of California in order
to protect the State's valuable water resources, and urges the Governor
to work with appropriate authorities at the Federal level to achieve
this prohibition and to identify alternative methods to achieve
acceptable air quality objectives.
Passed and Adopted at a duly held Regular Meeting of the Board of
Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District on the 19th Day of
March.
______
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Resolution
No. 97-1850
alameda county flood control and water conservation district board of
directors
Whereas, Zone 7 of Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, has as its charge the protection of the
groundwater basin over which it lies: and
Whereas, the aforementioned protection extends to both the
management of the groundwater supply as well as the quality of the
water therein conned; and
Whereas, since the use of MTBE, methyl-tert-butyl ether, as a fuel
additive began, the rapid spread of MTBE throughout the State of
California's groundwater and surface waters has been documented; and
Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the
Centers for Disease Control and the California Department of Health
Services have all recognized the probable carcinogenic, public health
hazards, or aesthetic concerns of MTBE exposure; and
Whereas, recent analyses have shown that the use of dunking water
wells in certain California cities has been lost due to MTBE
contamination; and
Whereas, the hydrophilic properties of his have been documented as
well as its ability to travel through the water cycle; and
Whereas, the rapid movement of MTBE through an aquifer has been
demonstrated once contamination has occurred; and
Whereas, despite the use of Best Available Technologies,
underground gasoline storage tanks including those within our area will
leak, and gasoline will be spilled; and
Whereas, MTBE's resistance to biodegration and the difficulty of
clean-up by standard practices has been documented; leaving prevention
a more effective defense than remediation; and
Whereas, at this point in time, MTBE has not yet been found In the
Zone 7 drinking water supply, and that the time to act is before
contamination occurs; and
Whereas, it is nor in the best interests of public health to
sacrifice water quality for air quality;
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Board of Directors of Zone
7 of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
exercise its duties as the manager of the groundwater basin by
recommending that the addition of MTBE to motor vehicle fuels be
discontinued and that a more environmentally responsible fuel additive
be employed to reduce harmful exhaust emissions; and
Be It Further Resolved,, that the General Manager of Zone 7 be
directed to submit its resolution to the Governor's Office, USEPA,
SWRCB, RWQCB, Air Resources Board, Bay Area Air Quality Management
District and the Department of Health Services.
______
Mesa Consolidated Water District Resolution No. 1207
a resolution of the board of directors of the mesa consolidated water
district urging the governor and legislature to prohibit the use of
methyl tertiary-butyl ether gasoline
Whereas, Mesa Consolidated Water District's (Mesa) mission is to
serve our customers through efficient management and distribution of a
sufficient supply of quality water at a fair cost; and
Whereas, Mesa relies upon groundwater to supply the water needs of
the majority of its customers, and relies upon imported surface water
as a supplement supply, and
Whereas, Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) represents a threat to
both groundwater and surface water supplies in California, and
Whereas, MTBE is a known carcinogen that does not biodegrade in the
environment and is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in the
water supply, and
Whereas, Mesa has urged the Orange County Water District Board of
Directors, who act as our groundwater guardian, to lead a county-wide
effort that requires petroleum companies remove MTBE from gasoline, and
Whereas, Mesa customers and other ratepayers should not bear the
burden of expensive treatment costs when the problem could be stopped
at the source, and
Whereas, Mess believes that coordinated state-wide as well as
industry-wide efforts are essential to protect our groundwater basin
and the customers who rely on a safe and reliable drinking water
source.
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, by the Board of Directors of the the
Consolidated Water District, that the Board of Directors hereby urges
the Governor and Legislature to lead a statewide effort to require that
petroleum companies remove MTBE from gasoline.
Adopted, Signed and Approved this 27th day of August.
______
Gilroy, CA, Resolution No. 98-41
resolution of the council of the city of gilroy requiring governor pete
wilson to prohibit the use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (mtbe) in
california's gasoline
Whereas, California's water supply is its most important natural
resource and its protection is crucial to the fixture of California,
and
Whereas, California's cities and communities rely on this water
supply for their drinking water, to maintain agriculture as viable in
California and for the daily life activities of all California
citizens, and
Whereas, the approximately 60,000 people of the City Of Gilroy and
the South Santa Clara County area rely exclusively on groundwater
aquifers as the source of drinking water, and for agriculture uses, and
Whereas, California's water supplies lost through contamination
will require new sources of water to be developed at a huge cost borne
mostly by the State Government, and
Whereas, protecting this natural and valuable resource is critical
to insuring the future of this great state and the success of
California's economy, and
Whereas, the willingness of California leaders to insure this
natural and critical resource is protected will be one of the measures
by which future generations will judge present leadership, and
Whereas, this water supply is today, as are most water supplies in
the State of California, threatened with irreparable harm from the
gasoline additive Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), which has been
detected in local aquifers and reservoirs, and
Whereas, it is known that once MTBE enters an aquifer or drinking
water well, it cannot easily be removed, if at all, and that water
source must be abandoned, creating an irreparable harm to a local
community, and
Whereas, MTBE is a pervasive compound that by the time it can be
detected, contamination has already occurred and the water supply has
been rendered useless, thereby rendering prevention the only viable
means to maintain water supplies free of MTBE, and
Whereas, to date, over 300 underground storage tanks alone in Santa
Clara County have been determined to have been leaking MTBE, thereby
creating a serious exposure to contamination of the water supply in one
of California's most critical economic regions, and
Whereas, it is now urgent that the leadership of California take
effective measures to stop further exposure and risk to this State's
water supply from this gasoline additive.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, the City County of the City of
Gilroy urgently requests State of California immediately prevents
further use of MTBE, or any other oxygenate, as an additive to motor
vehicle fuels, and
Be It Further Resolved,, that the City Council of the City of
Gilroy urgently requests the Governor to exercise his executive office
and powers to insure the safety of California's water supply and
resources by removing the additive MTBE and other ether oxygenates from
motor vehicle fuels in the State of California and urges the Governor
to work with the appropriate Federal officials to achieve this
prohibition and to identify alternative methods to achieve acceptable
air quality levels that do not expose the water supply of this great
state and the future of its citizens to harm.
______
Los Altos, CA, Resolution No. 98-24
resolution of the city council of the city of los altos entreating
governor pete wilson to protect the drinking water of los altos, by
prohibiting the use of mtbe in gasoline
Resolved by the City Council of the City of Los Altos, Santa Clam
County, California, that
Whereas, MTBE poses a sloths threat to the drinking water of Los
Altos by continuing to contaminate its sources of drinking water; and
Whereas, due to the vigilance of the California Water Service
Company, our drinking water is safes but as long as MTBE is present in
gasoline our wells are at risk; and
Whereas, MTBE's taste and odor makes contaminated drinking water
unacceptable; and
Whereas, citizens of this State have right to demand that the
sources of drinking water be MTBE-free;
Now, Therefore It Is Ordered, as follows: That the City Council of
the City of Los Altos hereby entreats Governor Pete Wilson to rake
immediate action to prohibit the use on MTBE, as an additive to
gasoline.
______
Los Gatos, CA, Resolution 1998-139
resolution of town council of town of los gatos requesting the governor
and the legislature to prohibit use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether or
other ether oxygenates in motor in motor fuel
Whereas, Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) represents a threat to
ground water and Eunice water supplies in California; and,
Whereas, MTBE has been detected in local reservoirs, imported
water, ding water treatment plant influent and effluent, and
groundwater; and
Whereas, MTBE is difficult and expensive to remove once it is in
the water supply; and
Whereas, MTBE is highly soluble in water, is a high degree of
mobility in soils and persistence in the water and has a very low taste
and odor threshold; and,
Whereas, although the health effects of MTBE are not well known, it
is a possible human carcinogen; and,
Whereas, MTBE been detected at nearly 300 leaking underground
storage tank sites Santa Clara County; and,
Whereas, the mechanisms of MTBE contamination include leaking
underground Storage tank systems, other gasoline storage and
distribution systems, gasoline-powered watercraft, storm water runoff,
and rainfall washout; and
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos hereby urges a prohibition on the use of MTBE or any other
ether oxygenate as an additive to motor fuels within the State of
California.
Be It Further Resolved,, that the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos urges the Governor to employ his executive powers, and the
Legislature to adopt laws, to achieve removal of MTBE and other ether
oxygenates as additives to motor fuels in the State of California in
order to protect the State's valuable water resources, and urges the
Governor and the Legislature to work with the appropriate authorities
at the Federal level to achieve this prohibition and to identify
alternative methods to achieve acceptable air quality objectives.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 8th day of September 1998.
______
Los Altos Hills, CA, Resolution No. 68-98
a resolution of the town of los altos hills, requesting governor wilson
to prohibit the use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether in gasoline
Whereas, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills supports
efforts to repeal the Federal requirement that gasoline contain
oxygenates while maintaining air quality standards; and
Whereas, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills supports
efforts at the state level eliminate MTBE from fuel; and
Whereas, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills support
continued research into the public health impact of MTBE in drinking
water; and
Whereas, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills supports
efforts to maintain air quality so state and Federal transportation
funds linked to air quality are not put in jeopardy; and
Whereas, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills supports
legislation including H.R. 630 (Bilbray), S. 1576 (Feinstein), SJR 36
(Johannassen), SB1926 (Mountjoy) and opposes AB2439 (Bower).
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the City Council of the Town
of Los Altos Hills supports measures to remove methyl tertiary-butyl
ether (MTBE) gasoline so to preserve the quality of our water supply.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 1998.
______
Los Gatos Village Association,
San Jose, CA, August 30, 1998.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Los Gatos Village Association, I am
writing in support of legislation introduced by Senator Feinstein, S.
1576, and Congressman Bilbray, H.R. 630, which would eliminate the
Federal requirement that California use oxygenated fuels.
By way of reference, Los Gatos Village Association is a 163
townhouse common interest development in the City of Los Gatos,
California.
We are very concerned about Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) in
water supplies throughout the state. In Santa Clara County, MTBE has
been detected in the Santa Clara Valley Water District's local
reservoirs, imported water, drinking water treatment plant influent and
effluent, and groundwater. One drinking water supply has been shut down
in the county while the source of trace MTBE concentrations is
identified and remedied. Most importantly, MTBE has also been detected
in groundwater at nearly 300 leaking underground storage tank sites in
Santa Clara County, at concentrations as high as 430,000 parts per
billion. Once in the water supply, MTBE is difficult and expensive to
remove. MTBE is soluble and mobile, and it is persistent in the
subsurface environment. The health effects of MTBE are not fully
understood, but it is known that MTBE is a possible carcinogen and has
a low taste and odor threshold. The most effective way to prevent
additional impact to water supplies and public health from MTBE is to
cease its use as an additive to motor vehicle fuels. The Feinstein and
Bilbray legislation would eliminate a Federal requirement that
California use oxygenated fuels in its clean air gasoline while
observing reduced vehicle emission levels. We are asking for your
support of this critical legislation so that it can move forward in a
timely way.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Victor Acevedo, Association Manager.
______
Exchange of Correspondence Between Senator Feinstein and EPA
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510, September 14, 1998.
Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460.
Dear Ms. Browner: I am writing you again to request action to
address the contamination of California's drinking water by the
gasoline additive MTBE. Since I last wrote you, a June 12, 1998
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has study found that MTBE is a
``frequent and widespread contaminant'' in groundwater throughout the
state. MTBE has been found in public wells, private wells and
reservoirs.
In your December 8, 1997 response to my November 3, 1997 letter in
which urged you to immediately establish drinking water standards for
MTBE, you indicated that MTBE is on the ``draft Contaminant Candidate
List for further evaluation to determine whether or not to regulate
MTBE in drinking water.'' What is the status of this list and
evaluation? Will MTBE be evaluated as a drinking water contaminant?
In the same December 8 letter, you indicated that under the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 EPA has the authority to
promulgate interim regulations in cases of an ``urgent threat to public
health'' and that ``currently available information . . . would not be
a sufficient basis to find that an urgent threat to public health' is
present in this situation.'' In light of the growing incidence of MTBE
contamination, is there now sufficient basis? If not, what would
constitute ``sufficient basis'' to justify regulations?
On September 24, 1997, I wrote you urging that you to examine MTBE
contamination and requested recommend actions Congress might take. In
your November 14, 1997 response, you indicated that by December 1988,
all underground storage tanks installed prior to December 1988 must be
upgraded, closed or replaced to meet requirements to prevent releases
and meet Federal regulations.
As you know, leaking underground storage tanks are a major source
of MTBE in drinking water supplies. More than 10,000 sites (according
to a Lawrence Livermore June 11 study) have been already been
contaminated. EPA officials have said in Congressional briefings that
only half of the nation's 600,000 tanks will comply and unfortunately,
the California Water Resources Board indicates that half of our state's
underground storage tanks still need to be upgraded to prevent leaks.
What action does EPA intend to take to bring these remaining tanks into
compliance?
In your November 14, 1997 letter responding to my letter, you
discussed an October 7, 1997 meeting of experts that EPA convened to
develop a research strategy for fuel oxygenates. What is the status of
that strategy? What research is planned on MTBE? Does the strategy
include an effort to establish more clearly the effects of MTBE on
human health, both ingested and inhaled?
Finally, since the California Air Resources Board regulations for
clean air are stronger and more effective than the Federal regulations
and the Air Resources Board has stated that California can meet these
standards without MTBE, why would EPA not support an allowance for
that?
I appreciate your many efforts to protect the nation's natural
resources and I look forward to working with you to make California's
drinking water safe and potable.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460, December 8, 1997.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter dated November 3,
1997, regarding the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) and groundwater contamination issues. You asked that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consider the immediate
establishment of drinking water standards and noted that you had not
received a response to your September 24, 1997 letter on the issue of
MTBE contamination. A response to your September 24, 1997 letter was
sent on November 14, 1997. We have also enclosed a copy of that
response for your convenience.
In our November 14, 1997 letter, we discussed the many fronts on
which EPA is addressing questions about MTBE, including activities
completed or underway by the Agency and throughout the Federal
Government to accurately characterize the scientific and policy issues.
With respect to drinking water, this work will substantially improve
our knowledge of the occurrence and potential for human exposure to
MTBE in drinking water sources across the country and improve our data
base on the health effects of MTBE in drinking water. We do take very
seriously the appropriate direction to EPA, in the Safe Drinking Water
Act amendments of 1996, to use the ``best available peer-reviewed
science'' in regulating drinking water contaminants. We believe the
data obtained from these activities should help to fill the scientific
gaps in our understanding of MTBE and other potential fuel oxygenates
to better inform our decisions.
In the interim, the Agency is very near finalizing a Drinking Water
Advisory on MTBE that will assist states and local communities in
making important water supply and management decisions if MTBE is
detected in a drinking water supply. The Advisory notes that most
people will neither taste nor smell MTBE at levels below 20-40 parts
per billion. Our best current information indicates that these
concentrations are up to 100,000 times lower than levels found to show
cancer or noncancer health effects in rodents. In other words, managing
MTBE to levels that ensure consumer acceptance of the water (at or
below this taste and odor threshold) will also provide a margin of
safety from adverse health effects that is equal to or greater than the
margin of safety generally provided by our National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations.
Therefore, where MTBE contamination is found at the levels you
described, the lack of consumer acceptability will ensure that the
water supplier will act to provide drinking water at palatable, and
thus cleaner and safer levels. Our Advisory was developed to assist
water suppliers and communities in making these management decisions,
and to communicate that current scientific data does not indicate MTBE
poses a significant health risk from water that consumers will accept.
In addition, as part of implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996. the Office of Water has placed MTBE on the draft
Contaminant Candidate list for further evaluation to determine whether
or not to regulate MTBE in drinking water. Information gathered from
the Agency's research and data collection efforts will be used to
direct our determination of whether or not to regulate MTBE in drinking
water within the timeframes specified in the 1996 Amendments. EPA has
authority under the 1996 Amendments to promulgate interim regulations
more quickly in cases of an ``urgent threat to public health.''
However, we believe that, taken together, the necessity of public water
systems to manage their drinking water supplies to ensure consumer
acceptability, and currently available information about the problem,
would not be a sufficient basis to find that an ``urgent threat to
public health'' is present in this situation.
Thank you for contacting the Agency regarding this matter. If you
have any further questions or need additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact me, or have your staff contact Bill Diamond,
Director of the Standards and Risk Management Division at 202-260-7575,
or Jeannette Wiltse, Director of the Health and Ecological Criteria
Division at 202-260-7317.
Sincerely,
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator,
Office of Water.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460, November 14, 1997.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter dated September
24, 1997, regarding the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) and possible groundwater contamination You asked the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to advise you on possible actions
that would be appropriate in preserving our nation's water quality. I
want to assure you that EPA takes seriously the issue of MTBE
contamination of water.
As you know, in the Clean Air Act of 1990 (Act), Congress mandated
the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG) in those areas of the country
with the worst ozone or smog problems. The RFG program, which began In
January 1, 1995, is currently required in 10 areas and voluntarily
implemented in another 22 (these 32 areas are a total of 18 states and
the Distinct of Columbia). As directed by the Act, RFG must contain a
minimum oxygen content of 2 percent by weight, a maximum benzene
content of 1 percent, and no lead, manganese, or other heavy metals. In
June 1996, California required statewide use of its Phase II RFG. The
``cleaner burning gasoline,'' which has stricter standards than the
Federal RFG requirements. RFG accounts for about 30 percent of the
gasoline nationwide.
RFG is required to reduce the emissions of both ozone-forming,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic pollutants by 15 percent
with no nitrogen oxide (NOx) increase. The refiners' 1995/96 fuel data
submitted to EPA indicate that the emissions benefits exceed the
required reductions. EPA's 1996 Air Quality Trends Report showed that
various toxic air pollutants, such as benzene; a known carcinogen,
declined significantly between 1994 and 1995. Analysis indicates this
progress may be attributable to the use of RFG. Starting in the year
2000, the required emission reductions are substantially greater, at
about 97 percent for VOCs, 32 percent for tonics, and 7 percent for
NOx.
Ethanol and MTBE are the primary oxygenates used in the RFG program
to meet the oxygen content requirement MTBE is used in about 84 percent
of RFG supplies because of economic reasons and its blending
characteristics. MTBE is also often used in gasoline at lower
concentrations as an octane enhancer in place of lead to reduce engine
knocking.
It is important to compare the risks of any gasoline additive the
components of gasoline it replaces. Studies to date have not indicated
that MTBE poses any greater risk to health than other gasoline
components, and is likely less harmful then other gasoline components,
such as benzene, which is a known carcinogen. Although additional
research is needed to determine Federal drinking water guidance levels
and to conduct a comparative risk analysis, the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSIP) report which is further discussed
below, stated that, ``the estimated upper-bound inhalation cancer unit
risks for MTBE are similar to or slightly less than those for fully
vaporized conventional gasoline, substantially less than that for
benzene, a constituent of gasoline that is classified as a known human
carcinogen; and more than 100 times less then that for 1,3-butadiene, a
carcinogenic emission product of incomplete fuel combustion.''
Pursuant to section 211 of the Act, EPA recently notified the fuels
industry of the health effects testing it is required to perform for
conventional and oxygenated gasoline (including MTBE). This exposure
assessment and toxicology testing 11 commence shortly after the public
comment period and will result in a greater understanding of the
comparative risks associated with inhalation exposures to conventional
and oxygenated gasoline fuels. The results of this research effort also
may be helpful in characterizing risk in water by extrapolating the
data to oral ingestion risk. Once this research is completed, the
Agency-directed peer review will determine whether these fuels have
been adequately tested or if more research will be required.
In regards to water, EPA recognizes that there have been detectors
of MTBE ground water in various wells throughout California. MTBE
detections at high concentrations result primarily from leaking
underground fuel storage tanks, and possibly from transmission
facilities. More than one million underground fuel storage tanks exist
in the United States, and leaks from these tanks have been the focus of
major programs to prevent or remediate such releases to the
environment.
EPA's Underground Storage Tank Program is designed to minimize
further contamination of water supplies by petroleum stored in
underground tanks, including gasoline containing MTBE. The Program
establishes requirements to upgrade tanks, prevent releases due to tank
failures and overfills, detect and report leaks, and clean up releases.
Since the adoption of Federal underground storage tank (UST)
regulations in 1988, over one million tanks have been closed. About
half of the remaining one million active tanks covered by EPA's UST
program have been upgraded or replaced. During the past decade, over
160,000 fuel releases have been completely remediated out of over
330,000 confirmed releases. All USTs installed after December 1988 are
currently required to meet EPA regulations for preventing leaks and
spills. All USTs installed prior to December 1988 must be upgraded,
closed, or replaced to meet these requirements by December 1998. In
addition to regulations for preventing leaks, EPA regulations have
required leak detection methods to be in place for all USTs since 1993.
Both EPA and the states perforce these regulations.
You asked our views on the appointment of a panel of scientists to
investigate the extent of leakages and to offer specific
recommendations to ensure the safety of our nations' groundwater
supply. I want to make you aware that a scientific investigation of
issues related to MTBE, including water contamination, was recently
completed by a panel of experts. As mentioned previously, the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy convened an Interagency
Oxygenated Fuels Assessment Steering Committee in May 1995 upon EPA's
request. The Committee included representatives with various scientific
expertise from a number of agencies including: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of
Energy, U.S. Geological Survey, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and EPA.
In February 1996, OSTP released its draft assessment of the
wintertime oxygenated fuels program which looked at a broad range of
issues related to the use of oxygenates in gasoline, including water
quality impacts. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), an independent
body of scientists, was then asked by EPA to evaluate and peer-review
OSTP's draft Oxygenated Fuels Assessment Report. NAS's comments were
used by the Committee in developing the final document that was
released in June 1991, entitled ``Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated
Fuels.'' As a result, this document is a thorough, comprehensive, and
scientifically justifiable source of information on MTBE.
The final OSTP report stated that, ``MTBE has been detected in 51
public drinking water systems to date based on limited monitoring in 5
states, however, when detected, the concentrations of MTBE were for the
most part below the lower level of the current EPA health advisory.
This indicates that the contamination of drinking water was not a major
route of exposure for these few systems.'' The OSTP report also noted
that, ``Because of the very limited data set for fuel oxygenates in
drinking water, it is not possible to describe for the Nation MTBE's
occurrence in drinking water nor to characterize human exposure from
consumption of contained drinking water.'' The OSTP report concluded
that more monitoring and research would be needed to better
characterize major sources of MTBE to the environment and to enable an
exposure assessment for MTBE and drinking water.
As a result of this need for additional information, an Agency-wide
Task force has been formed to develop a ``Research Strategy for
Oxygenates in Water.'' The Strategy will identify key issues and
describe a strategy to obtain information to support health risk
assessment and risk management in the areas of environmental
occurrence, source characterization, transport and transformation,
exposure, toxicity and remediation of water contamination by fuel
oxygenates, such as MTBE.
On October 7, 1997. EPA convened a day-long meeting of over 50
experts on a broad range of MTBE-related issues to review a draft of
the Research Strategy. The experts included representatives from
industry, academia, consultants, and other government agencies. The
attendees included: Dr. Goldstein of EOHSI's Department of
Environmental Community Medicine; Dr. Denton of California Air
Resources Board; Dr. Happel of Lawrence Livermore National Lab; Dr.
Borghoff of Chemical Industry Instance of Toxicology, representatives
from Santa Monica and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Dr.
Zogorski of U.S. Geological Survey, among many others. The information
produced in this workshop is being used to help finalize the research
strategy for fuel oxygenates and will help coordinate efforts by
various organizations, public and private, to address the issues
related to oxygenates water.
The Agency's Office of Water is expected to release this fall a
provisional MTBE drinking water advisory that has been peer-reviewed by
outside experts. This provisional advisory will be issued as part of
EPA's longstanding Health Advisory Program to provide information and
guidance to individuals or agencies concerned with potential risk from
drinking water contaminant for which no national regulations currently
exist. Based on existing taste and odor research, the MTBE advisory
will recommend the concentration levels of MTBE in drawing water that
are acceptable from an aesthetic perspective. The advisory will also
have a discussion on the health effects of MTBE. While adverse health
effects of MTBE exposure have been observed in laboratory animal
toxicity tests (including both cancer and noncancer effects and
identify a potential for hazard to humans from exposure to the
chemical), the animal tests were not conducted by exposing the animals
to drinking water, but rather by air exposure or by introducing MTBE in
oil directly to the stomach. Because of the way the tests were done,
their results do not support confident estimates of the degree of risk
MTBE may pose to humans from low-level drinking water contamination,
and EPA is therefore not establishing a health-based advisory level at
this time. However, the advisory will compare the concentrations within
the acceptable organoleptic range to the available health data from the
animal studies and will present margins of exposure to cancer and non-
cancer effects. EPA, other Federal agencies, and private entities are
conducting research to better characterize the potential health risks
from MTBE exposure as well as several other aspects of MTBE's potential
to contaminate the environment. When the human health aspects of the
research become available, EPA's Office of Water will issue a final
advisory to replace this provisional one.
In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in
1996, requires EPA to publish a list of contaminants that may require
regulation, based on their known or anticipated occurrence public
drinking water systems. The SDWA, as amended, specifically directs EPA
to publish the first list of contaminants (Contaminant Candidate List,
or CCL) by February 1998, after consultation with the scientific
community, including EPA's Science Advisory Board, and notice and
opportunity for public comment. The amendments also require EPA by 2001
to select at lease five contaminants from the final CCL and make
determination of whether or not to develop drinking water standards for
them. The Office of Water published a draft CCL for public comment in
the Federal Register on October 6, 1997. MTBE is included on the draft
CCL based on actual MTBE contamination of certain drinking water
supplies, e.g., Santa Monica and the potential for contamination of
other drinking water supplies in areas of the country where MTBE is
used in high levels. The SDWA provides EPA with the authority to take
action (i.e. interim regulation) prior to the 2001 deadline if there is
an urgent threat to human health.
EPA is aware that MTBE has been detected at elevated concentrations
in groundwater near leaking fuel tanks throughout California, and that
this has raised concerns regarding the occurrence of MTBE in drinking
water supplies. The California Department of Health Services (DHS)
advised public drinking water supply systems to monitor for MTBE in
February 1996 and required monitoring by regulation in February 1997.
Per this regulation, the systems in California must monitor their
sources of drinking water which includes wells and surface water
bodies. As of October 1997, approximately 10 percent of the 4,418
drinking water systems have sampled for MTBE, which includes about
twenty percent of drinking water sources (2,268 of approximately 11,000
sources). Of the systems sampled, 16 (or 3.7 percent) have reported
MTBE detections, and 28 (or 1.2 percent) of the sampled sources have
detected MTBE. Most of the reported concentrations to date have been at
low concentrations (e.g. below 20 micrograms per liter). Further
sampling of California's remaining water supply systems will be
necessary to understand the potential impacts of MTBE on drinking water
resources. In the interim, State water agencies, with EPA assistance as
necessary, should pursue swift remediation of leaking tanks serving as
sources of groundwater contamination.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is continuing to conduct
its National Ambient Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program designed
to assess the status and trends of the Nation's groundwater and surface
water quality. USGS is monitoring for VOCs, including MTBE, in storm
water, shallow groundwater, and deeper groundwater in selected areas of
the country. As an extension to the NAWQA program, EPA's Office of
Water has entered into a cooperative agreement with the USGS to conduct
an assessment of the occurrence and distribution of MTBE in the 12 mid-
Atlantic and Northeastern States. Like California, these States have
used MTBE extensively in the RFG and Oxygenated Fuels programs. This
study will supplement the data gathered in California and will attempt
to shed light on the important issues of (1) whether or not MTBE has
entered drinking water distribution systems or impacted drinking water
source supplies, and (2) determine if point (land) or nonpoint sources
(air) are associated with detections of MTBE in groundwater resources.
Activities are underway to begin collecting data in early 1998.
As you can see, we have a great deal of activity underway to
protect the Nation's water supplies and to better assess the issues
surrounding the use of gasoline containing MTBE. As mentioned before,
many of the activities include direct involvement of scientists and
health experts from organizations outside of EPA. Over the coming
months these efforts will add to what is already known about MTBE and
other components of gasoline.
Thank you for writing to the Agency with your concerns. I hope the
above information is helpful, and if you have any farther questions.
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
______
United States Senate,
Washington, November 3, 1997.
Honorable Carol M Browner, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460.
Dear Ms. Browner: I awn writing to urge that you consider the
immediate establishment of drinking water standards for the gasoline
oxygenated MTBE.
It is my understanding that the Environmental Protection Agency has
been considering, for some time, the establishment of regulations
pertaining to MTBE in drinking water. I hope that you will act quickly
and decisively to ensure that our nation's drinking, water is protected
from contamination.
So far, EPA has given communities with MTBE in their water supply
very little guidance on the effects of large concentrations of MTBE in
drinking water. While EPA has issued a non-binding draft lifetime
health advisory of 70 parts per billion, (ppb), there is no enforceable
Federal regulation on the concentration of MTBE in water.
Moreover, the health advisory does not protect public health. I
know of several detections in California where drinking water wells
contained much more than the Federal draft lifetime health advisory. I
call to your attention a number of cases recently cited by the
California Department of Health Services:
In Santa Monica, CA, officials have detected MTBE in City wells up
to 130 ppb--over two times the current Federal advisory.
In the Presidio of San Francisco, one well contained a
concentration of 120 ppb.
In Marysville, CA, city officials discovered MTBE at a
concentration of 115 ppb.
As long as this standard is merely an advisory, existing Federal
law does not prohibit these highly contaminated wells from being used
for human consumption.
California has responded by passing, legislation which not only
studies the extent and potential health impacts of MTBE in water
supplies, but also requires the State Department of Health Services to
establish a binding drinking water standard. I believe it is time for
the Federal Government to provide some much needed leadership on the
issue of MTBE.
I would also like to bring to your attention the fact that I have
not received a response to my September 24, 1997, letter to you
regarding the contamination of our nation's groundwater by gasoline
additives such as MTBE. (A copy is enclosed.)
Thank you for your immediate attention. Please let me know of any
decision you make in regard to this most pressing matter.
With warmest personal regards.
Sincerely yours,
Diane Feinstein, United States Senator.
______
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, September 24, 1997.
Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460.
Dear Ms. Browner: I am writing to request that the Environmental
Protection Agency move as quickly as possible to examine the possible
contamination of our nation's groundwater by gasoline additives such as
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). I am hopeful you might advise me on
possible legislative action in this area that would be appropriate for
Congress.
I appreciate your past responses to me on the subject of the health
effects of airborne ingestion of MTBE, but I am writing to you again
because the problem of chemical contamination to our water supply
appears to be quickly escalating.
MTBE groundwater contamination is a particularly serious problem in
California, where leaks are occurring with more frequency. The growing
concern prompted the California State Senate to pass bipartisan
legislation to conduct a study on the safety and environmental effects
of MTBE. The recent incidents in California that have caused this
reaction dot the California landscape.
In Santa Monica, the City has shut down half of its well water
supply as a result from MTBE leaking out of shallow gas tanks beneath
the surface.
*In South Lake Tahoe, MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned
wells approximately 100 feet from City Council Chambers and
concentrations of the chemical are said to double each month.
In Santa Clara County, 250 underground fuel tank sites have leaked
MTBE next to water wells used by the residents of San Jose and other
nearby communities.
In Livermore, a gas station with a substantial leak is threatening
a commonly used public drinking water well.
Groundwater contamination by gasoline additives such as MTBE has
also been seen nationwide--from Alaska to North Carolina. For example,
a 1995 report by the U.S. Geological Survey reveals that MTBE was
detected in 27 percent of urban wells and springs throughout the United
States. A newer study shows that 51 public systems and many private
wells in five states could be contaminated.
As you know, Congress, concerned about the lack of compliance with
clean air standards in certain regions in the country, amended the
Clean Air Act in 1990 to mandate oil refineries add oxygenated formulas
into gasoline. These oxygenates enable automobiles and trucks to reduce
carbon monoxide emissions because they help burn gasoline more
efficiently. MTBE, an octane booster which had been used in small
quantities by the oil industry for many years, is a significant
component of the reformulated gasoline.
Many scientists disagree about the long-term effects of MTBE
ingestion. Some scientists believe there is a link between exposure or
consumption of MTBE and certain types of cancer, asthma and other
ailments. Researchers have noted that rats exposed to the chemical have
developed various tumors, lymphomas, leukemia, as well as kidney and
liver damage. Other scientists maintain that, because it leaves such a
strong odor and taste in water at relatively low concentration levels,
MTBE poses very little risk to the general public.
One option I would like you to consider is the appointment of a
panel of scientists to investigate the extent of leakages and to offer
specific recommendations to ensure the safety of our nation's
groundwater supply. I would personally appreciate your advice on what
legislative action I might pursue to amend the Clean Air Act to protect
our air quality without sacrificing our groundwater.
I look forward to hearing your reply and to seeing your plan of
action.
With warmest personal regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460, July 7, 1997.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510-0504.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter of April 22,
which was in follow up to your initial correspondence of April 11. I
apologize for the delay in responding to your second communication, but
I believe that the letter of May 15 from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, addressed most of the specific
questions you raised in your April 22 correspondence.
I can now provide you some additional information concerning one of
the questions you raised about human exposure to combustion products of
MTBE in gasoline. You asked, ``Are EPA or other researchers measuring
the quantity of combustion products of MTBE in the air to determine
levels of human exposure? If EPA is not, why not?'' Research on that
point is included in a set of proposed required studies that would be
conducted under provisions of the Fuels and Fuel Additives Rule, as
authorized by Section 211(b) of the Clean Air Act. The Office of Mobile
Sources in the Office of Air and Radiation is about to issue formal
notification on these requirements to a consortium of oxygenate
manufacturers. Although EPA scientists in the Office of Research and
Development have been providing guidance and direction for this
research, the responsibility for funding and implementing these
required studies would be borne by the industry. The reason for this is
to ensure that the costs of testing the environmental and health
impacts of fuels and fuel additives are paid by the companies that
stand to profit from the sale of these products, not by the taxpayers.
You also asked, ``Are EPA or other researchers determining the
combustion products of MTBE when used as an automobile fuel?''
Extensive investigations of the combustion products of MTBE-gasoline
and other formulations have been carried out not only by EPA but by a
major program funded by the automobile and oil industries with EPA
technical participation. In addition, the oxygenate manufacturers are
required to provide EPA emissions data on MTBE-gasoline (as well as
baseline gasoline and other oxygenate-gasoline mixtures) under
provisions of the Fuels and Fuel Additives Rule noted above.
Let me assure you that we have been very much aware of the concerns
raised in your letter and the attached correspondence from Dr. Peter
Joseph of Pennsylvania, and I believe we have been taking appropriate
steps to address those concerns. For example, studies to (a) determine
whether tertiary butyl formate (TBF) can be detected in the atmosphere
and (b) evaluate its irritancy potential were called for as early as an
August 1995 draft of the Agency's ``Oxyfuels Information Needs''
document. Efforts to address those needs were subsequently funded by
ARCO Chemical, with results thus far indicating that TBF is not an
especially irritating compound by comparison to other known inhalation
irritants. Also, when Dr. Joseph met with EPA scientists on April 9
(following his letter of April 5 to you), he was informed that,
contrary to his expectations, TBF has not been detected in combustion
emissions from MTBE-gasoline in tests conducted by EPA researchers
explicitly looking for TBF. This is not to say that we have to come to
any conclusion regarding the plausibility of any of Dr. Joseph's
hypotheses. He has raised several provocative questions, which we are
attempting to take into consideration as part of a much broader effort
to understand fully the environmental and public health impacts of both
conventional and oxygenated fuels.
I appreciate your active interest in this issue. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely yours,
Henry L. Longest II, Acting Assistant Administrator.
______
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460, May 15, 1997.
Honorable Dianne Feinstein,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter of April 11,
1997, to which you attached correspondence from Dr. Peter Joseph
raising concerns about exposures to compounds in gasoline, including
the oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).
As you know, the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990, Congress mandated the
reformulated gas (RFG) program for those areas of the country with the
worst ozone or smog problems. The program was developed through a
cooperative process with industry, environmentalists, sand local
governments to create a cost-effective program that requires ``cleaner
gasoline'' to reduce automotive emission of ozone-forming pollutants
and toxic materials. Ground-level ozone damages sensitive lung tissue
and can result in permanent damage to lung tissue over the long term.
Toxic emissions from conventional gasoline include materials like
benzene which is known to cause cancer in humans. Toxic emissions from
motor vehicles are estimated to account for roughly 50 percent of all
cancers associated with exposure to air toxins.
RFG is blended with the same ingredients used to make conventional
gasoline. The difference is that RFG has lower levels of certain
compounds that contribute to air pollution and higher level of
oxygenates to reduce harmful carbon monoxide emissions that result from
incomplete combustion. As directed in the CAA, RFG must contain a
minimum oxygen content of 2 percent, a maximum benzene content of 1
percent, and no lead, manganese, or other heavy mete Is. Ethanol, MTBE,
and ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE) are the main oxygenates currently
capable of competing in the RFG market.
Last year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewed an
assessment of oxygenated fuels issues by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP). The NAS report stated that ``it appears that
MTBE-containing fuels do not pose health risks substantially different
from those associated with nonoxygenated fuels.'' Therefore, the weight
of scientific evidence at present would seem to indicate there are no
identifiable adverse health effects associated with oxygenated gasoline
that would not also be associated with conventional gasoline.
Consistent with NAS recommendations, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is continuing to identify additional areas of research to
provide a basis for comparing gasoline/MTBE mixtures to gasoline
without MTBE. EPA will propose the health testing requirements for the
largest portion of this research in the coming months, while studies on
acute effects are already beginning.
Asthma mortality rates have been steadily climbing during the last
half of this century. A recent study by the National Institutes of
Health reported a 34 percent increase in asthma rates from 1983 to
1993. The winter oxygenated fuels program, however, was not implemented
on a widespread basis until 1992, and it was not until 1995, when the
RFG program started, that higher volumes of MTBE production were seen.
Dr. Joseph's letter asserts that MTBE use in gasoline causes
increased asthma rates. We have no evidence to support that
proposition. To the contrary, a recent study conducted by Maine's
Department of Human Services, which compared asthma hospitalization
rates in counties with and without RFG, concluded that ``the
introduction of RFG (containing MTBE) into seven southern Maine
counties has not resulted in an increase in hospitalization for asthma
among residents of those counties.''
Further, a study of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area hospital
admissions for asthma between 1986 to 1992, found an 8 percent increase
in asthma hospital admissions. This area of the country has never been
a part of the RFG or oxyfuel program, and therefore the contribution of
MTBE to the rising asthma rates, would be exceedingly small.
Dr. Joseph recently visited EPA and presented his findings
regarding MTBE, asthma rates, and t-butyl formate (TBF), which has been
the focus of a fair amount of his recent writings. He was made aware
that a broad study of vehicle emissions resulting from the use of
oxygenated fuels was currently underway in RTP, North Carolina, and
that MTBE oxygenated fuels were studied and showed no evidence of TBF
generation in the exhaust stream despite instrumental sensitivities
down to the parts per trillion level. This, however, does not rule out
the possibility that TBF may be formed from photooxidation of MTBE in
the air.
ARCO Chemical has responded with a recently completed study to
determine if TBF has the potential to cause pulmonary irritancy. The
research showed that TBF does cause pulmonary irritancy in mice at over
500 ppm, which was directly compared to other formates of known
irritancy, that produced similar animal breathing difficulties below
300 ppm. With ambient TBF levels expected in the low parts per billion,
if it can be detected at all, the chance that TBF would cause pulmonary
irritation among the general population is believed to be negligible.
ARCO is also making preparations to determine what levels of TBF might
be detected in ambient air in the Philadelphia region. Early results
should be available in the fall, 1997.
I have enclosed copies of the reports and studies cited above for
your review. I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns about
MTBE, TBF, and reformulated saline. Please contact us if you have any
additional questions or meets.
Sincerely yours,
Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
______
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, April 22, 1997.
Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460.
Dear Administrator Browner: I write to follow up on my April 11
letter in which I requested information on EPA's work to determine the
adverse human health effects of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a
chemical used in reformulated gasoline to increase the oxygen content.
In addition to the requests in that letter, I would like to pose
several additional specific questions:
Are EPA or other researchers determining the combustion products of
MTBE when used as an automobile fuel? If EPA is not, why not?
Are EPA or other researchers measuring the quantity of combustion
products of MTBE, in the air to determine levels of human exposure? If
EPA is not, why not?
Is EPA conducting systematic studies of the increase in the
incidence of asthma in specific cities, comparing cities with high
levels of MTBE to cities without (for example, San Francisco compared
to Portland, Oregon, or Los Angeles compared to Phoenix)? If EPA is
not, why not?
Is EPA routinely monitoring the adverse health effects resulting
from MTBE in cities, specifically tertiary butyl formate (TBF) from
MTBE, as suggested by the National Academy of Sciences in 1996? If not,
why not?
I am enclosing a letter raising these issues I received from Dr.
Peter Joseph, Professor of Radiologic Physics in Radiology at the
University of Pennsylvania Medical Center. I hope you will ask your
staff to be in touch with him at 215-662-6679.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator.
______
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, April 11, 1997
Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460.
Dear Administrator Browner: As you know, reformulated gasoline is
sold in many American cities as one way to meet Federal air quality
standards. Some experts maintain that methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), a chemical used in RFG to increase the oxygen content, causes
or contributes to adverse health effects. Some experts believe it is a
major contributing factor to the rising incidence of asthma in this
country.
I would appreciate information on and summaries of studies
analyzing the adverse health effects of MTBE and in particular, any
studies that might link its use to asthma. I would also appreciate
knowing of any current studies underway and the agency's view of the
health effects of MTBE.
I commend you for your efforts to improve the nation's air quality
and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator.
______
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA, June 15, 1997.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Washington, DC, 20510-0504.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I recently attended the annual meeting of
the Air and Waste Management Association in Toronto, Canada. The AWMA
is the largest and best known association of professional environmental
engineers and scientists. I was an invited speaker and presented my
paper entitled ``Changes in Disease Rates in Philadelphia following the
Introduction of Oxygenated Gasoline''. In that paper I document the
huge increase in asthma and some other diseases that has taken place
here since oxygenated gasoline with MTBE was mandated in 1992. I
enclose a copy for your interest. Please note also the addendum in
which I argue that the symptoms may be due to formic acid, a likely
combustion byproduct of MTBE in fuel.
I am happy to say that my paper was mostly well received, not only
by those that heard me speak, but apparently by many others who heard
about my research by word of mouth later. I heard some very favorable
comments from scientists and engineers from northern California.
Another paper that might interest you described work done by
Professor Eatough of Brigham Young University in Utah. Professor
Eatough found that when MTBE was mandatory in gasoline in the winter
months, the amount of sulfuric acid in the air doubled! This result was
totally unexpected and there was considerable discussion as to the
possible cause. Sulfuric acid is certainly very irritating to the
tissues of the respiratory system. I enclose a copy of the abstract of
his paper, since the paper itself is probably a bit too technical to be
understood by those without an advanced degree in chemistry.
My major concern now is the possibility that the EPA may enact the
new air quality standards for ozone. You may know that these changes
have been much discussed, and it is predicted that if they are made
then large parts of the country will be redefined as out of compliance.
I am extremely worried that such a step will force a major expansion of
the use of MTBE Reformulated Gasoline (RFG). If I am right that MTBE is
making asthma, the huge increase in MTBE usage will create far more
problems for asthmatics than any possible benefit from a 10-15 percent
reduction in ozone. Furthermore, such an expansion will make much more
difficult any possible epidemiologic study comparing asthma in the RFG
and non-RFG areas. Thus, for two reasons, I believe such a move will be
an enormous step in the wrong direction in terms of improving air
quality and helping people with respiratory disease.
I have heard that two people who will play an important role in
this decision are Senator John Chafee and Vice President Gore. I would
like to suggest that you set up a meeting with these two men, a meeting
at which I would have the chance to present my data, arguments, and
conclusions. of course, I would welcome the presence of anyone else
that you think may be interested, including the legislative staff of
the people involved. I would suggest that a minimum of 1 hour be
allocated to discuss this extremely complex and important issue.
I am hoping for a positive response to this suggestion.
Sincerely,
Peter M. Joseph, Ph.D.,
Professor of Radiologic Physics in Radiology.
P.S. I also enclose a copy of a letter from Mrs. Cathy Simpson of
Danville, CA. Mrs. Simpson is asthmatic and is convinced that her
problems are aggravated by MTBE in gasoline. She testified at the
Senate Transportation hearings on April 15.
______
Enhanced Formation of Sulfate and Nitrate Associated with the Use of
Oxygenated Fuels
for presentation at the air & waste management association's 90th
annual meeting & exhibition, june 8-13, 1997, toronto, ontario, canada
Yinghua Du, Yuan Ren, Nolan F. Mangelson and Delbert J. Eatough,
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Brigham Young University,
Provo, Utah
John A. Cooper, TRC Environmental Corporation, Beaverton, Oregon
Abstract
Oxygenated fuels are used in some western mountain valley
communities to help in the control of CO during winter inversions.
However, it is possible that oxygenated fuel use will increase
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. The oxygen in these fuels may lead to
increased concentrations of oxidants. In turn, the concentrations of
atmospheric oxidants involved in SO2 and NO2 chemistry may increase.
This may lead to increased conversion of SO2 and NOx to particulate
sulfate and nitrate. To explore the possible presence of this enhanced
atmospheric chemistry, samples of gas and particulate sulfur and
nitrogen oxides were collected in 5/day sample sets during four 3-day
inversion episodes at two locations in the urban areas of Utah Valley.
Two of the episodes occurred during December 1995 when oxygenated fuels
were used in the valley. The last two episodes occurred in February
1996 after the end of oxygenated fuel use on January 15. Fogs were
absent during all four episodes. The results indicate that the
conversion of SO2 to sulfate and NO2 to nitrate are both increased
about twofold during the use of oxygenated fuels as compared to the
non-oxygenated fuel periods The results, possible chemistry which may
be related to the observed differences and implications for attainment
of both the present and proposed new PM standard will be presented.
__________
Statement of Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, U.S. Senator from the State of
South Dakota
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you and Senator Baucus for
holding this hearing to review the merits of oxygenates in the Federal
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program, with particular emphasis on the
role of the fuel additive MTBE.
I also want to acknowledge Senators Boxer and Feinstein, who have
been at the forefront of the campaign to eliminate the presence of
gasoline and gasoline components in water supplies. I am pleased to be
able to join them in urging prompt action on this issue.
There should be no question about the importance of cleaning up
contaminated water supplies and solving the California problem for the
future. My purpose in testifying today is to help place the RFG-with-
oxygenates program in perspective and offer some thoughts on how the
situation identified by Senators Boxer, Feinstein and others might most
effectively be addressed.
As the committee considers options for dealing with MTBE
groundwater contamination, it is important to keep in mind Congress's
objectives in authorizing the RFG-with-oxygenates program in 1990. It
is also useful to note the remarkable environmental achievements of the
program since its implementation in 1995. And, it is essential to
understand the fundamental distinction between RFG's oxygenate
requirement and the fundamental problem we seek to redress.
Inadequate gasoline storage facilities that have allowed gasoline
and all its components, of which MTBE has been the most well
recognized, to contaminate water supplies is the cause of this problem,
not the RFG program. Simply removing MTBE from the marketplace will not
stop gasoline groundwater contamination. It will, however, have major
negative effects on other important national priorities.
Let me begin by emphasizing my strong conviction that the RFG-with-
oxygenates program has been highly successful, not only achieving but
in many cases surpassing the multiple goals set by Congress when first
enacted as part of the 1990 Clean Air Amendments. Moreover, it stands
as a model of how the public and private sectors can work together to
advance the public welfare in a safe and cost effective manner.
As the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member both know, the Senate
extensively debated the merits of the RFG-with-oxygenates provision
prior to its passage by a vote of 69 to 30 on March 29, 1990. A review
of the Congressional Record debate shows that Congress had several
major objectives in enacting the RFG-with-oxygenates program:
1. To improve air quality by reducing mobile source emissions (VOC
ozone precursors; toxics; and NOx);
2. To improve energy security by reducing oil imports;
3. To stimulate the economy, especially in rural America; and
4. To provide regulatory relief to the automotive industry by
cleaning up ``dirty'' fuel, which was a primary cause of urban
pollution.
Since 1995, nearly one-third of all gasoline sold in the U.S. has
been RFG-with-oxygenates, and there is no longer any need to speculate
about its effect. The facts are in.
In an April 22,1998 letter to Rep. Bilirakis voicing opposition to
legislation to waive the RFG oxygenate requirement, the American Lung
Association and Natural Resources Defense Council referred to RFG as
``one of the most successful programs enacted in the Clean Air Act
Amendments.'' EPA Administrator Browner has called the RFG program the
``most significant pollution reduction step since the phaseout of
lead.'' In fact, EPA has concluded that RFG-with--oxygenates has met or
surpassed the reduction goals set for VOC ozone precursors, toxics,
carbon monoxide, and even NOx. In an August 25,1997 letter to the
Director of Alabama's Department of Environmental Management, EPA's
Director of Mobile Sources, Margo Oge, cited Phase I RFG as having
achieved: ``. . . 43 percent reductions in benzene and 25 percent
reductions in mobile source related VOCs'' as well as a net reduction
of 24.6 percent in tonics,'' all of which exceed the requirements of
the Act.
RFG has been acknowledged as an effective pollution reduction tool
even by certain parts of the petroleum industry. I have attached an
editorial from the Oil & Gas Journal written by an employee of Valero
Refining, Cal Hodge, which makes an important distinction between the
``oxygen atom'' and the emissions impacts of an ``oxygenate''. Hodge
states that, ``Contrary to the assertion that the ``oxygen'' mandate
only reduces VOC and CO emissions, the complex model shows oxygenates
also provide significant reductions of toxic and NOx emissions.'' It is
worth noting that Hodge cites ETBE as one of the top performers, with
NOx emissions reductions of 5 percent, and toxic emissions reductions
of more than 32 percent.
Remarkably, given all these environmental benefits, RFG's costs
have been very low, averaging only 1 to 3 cents per gallon more than
conventional gasoline. In some areas of the country, RFG has actually
cost less than conventional gasoline. These costs are very close to the
EPA estimates provided during the Senate debate and are well below the
20 to 25 cent per gallon figure provided by the oil industry at the
time.
The RFG program has also appreciably improved our nation's energy
security position. In June 1996, the General Accounting Office (GAO),
at my request, analyzed the petroleum displacement effect of the RFG-
with-oxygenates program. GAO found that, even after adjusting for the
lower energy density of oxygenates, 305,000 barrels per day of imported
petroleum will be displaced by the oxygenate portion of RFG in the year
2000. This amounts to 37 percent of the 10 percent imported petroleum
displacement goal established by the Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy
Act. GAO further calculated that, if all gasoline were RFG with
oxygenates, nearly 800,000 barrels per day of imported petroleum would
be displaced.
Energy security experts like Jim Woolsey, former director of
Central Intelligence, and General Lee Butler, former commander,
Strategic Air Command and principal air planner for Desert Storm, have
spoken out frequently on the value of this near- to mid-term import
displacement. Butler and Woolsey have expressed their support for the
RFG-with-oxygenates program not only as a commercial foundation to
stimulate increased production of replacement fuels in the U.S., but
because it is one of the few, if not only, meaningful near-term oil
import reduction programs available. General Butler, speaking in his
capacity as Chairman of the Clean Fuels Foundation, points out that:
``It is the oxygenates in RFG that displace oil imports--the more RFG
with oxygenates, the less oil imports, and the less reliance on an
increasingly dangerous region of the world.''
The RFG program has provided a significant shot-in-the-arm to our
rural economy. As we all had hoped in 1990, the RFG-with-oxygenates
program has stimulated new investments in ethanol and ether facilities
in the U.S. Jobs have been created, and abundant supplies of grain and
butane, which has been forced out of gasoline due to its evaporative
contributions to ground level ozone, have been value-added to ethanol
and ethers. The oxygenated fuels industry has responded in good faith
to the 1990 law by investing billions of dollars in new plants all
across the country.
I have attached a September 9, 1998 letter from Indiana Gov. Frank
O'Bannon, Chairman of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition (GEC), to
Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, commending him on his recent decision
to opt-in the St. Louis area to the RFG program. Governor O'Bannon, in
citing the GEC's ``strong support'' of the RFG program, noted that it
also ``helps us build a strong market for ethanol.'' In addition to
dominant market shares in RFG areas like Chicago and Milwaukee, ethanol
has benefited from the State of Minnesota's implementation of a very
successful year-round 2.7 wt. percent oxygen standard, modeled on the
Federal law (the Senate amendment initially established a 2.7 wt.
percent standard, before it was modified in conference). Other
Midwestern States are considering following Minnesota's lead.
Despite these successes, many of us are disappointed that the RFG
program has not resulted in more use of ethanol, and especially ETBE. I
do believe, however, that expanded RFG use will result in more ethanol
and ETBE use in the future. The St. Louis ``opt-in'' decision is a good
example of how States can design their programs to encourage diversity
of oxygenate use, and benefit motorists and refiners with price and
product competition. Recently, Senator Lugar and I offered an amendment
to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that directs the USDA to report
to the Congress on ways to expand the use of ethanol and ETBE as we
enter the post-2000 cleaner gasoline era. A choice among oxygenates--
especially domestic oxygenates--is clearly best for motorists, workers,
the economy and farmers.
I am told that a number of new areas are seriously considering RFG,
including eastern Texas, Kansas City, Birmingham and others. The EPA
has recently issued rulings opening the door for former non-attainment
areas, and even those areas that have never been out of attainment, to
``opt-in'' to Federal RFG as a means of preventing non-compliance in
the future. That is why the committee's deliberations today are so
important; the precedents that could arise from precipitous action
could severely damage the growth prospects of all oxygenates, not just
MTBE.
Finally, RFG has helped the automotive industry meet tightening
environmental standards. The 1990 Senate debate had an additional
recurrent theme: while automobiles had gotten substantially cleaner in
the years since lead phaseout, gasoline had gotten substantially
dirtier. Thus, the RFG provision stemmed in part from the recognition
that it was time for petroleum refiners to pick up their fair share of
the burden for cleaner air.
I believe that the refining industry has responded well to the
imposition of RFG. As we have seen, costs have been far less than what
the oil industry predicted, and supplies have been readily available.
Nonetheless, the job is far from finished. Sulfur levels should be
cut. In addition, aromatics levels should be reduced further, which
would reduce combustion chamber deposits and driveability problems, as
well as provide additional toxics emission reductions.
In an August 24, 1998 letter to the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association (AAMA) wrote: ``. . . AAMA encourages you to adopt the
Federal Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) . . . Federal Phase
2 RFG will provide approximately the same sulfur levels as proposed in
the low sulfur option, and will also provide additional benefits. Among
these additional benefits, properly blended reformulated gasoline will:
--Lower emissions from all vehicles in the fleet, immediately upon
implementation;
--Reduce air toxic emissions;
--Reduce the potential for cold start driveability problems that
can increase emissions;
--Provide more consistent fuel quality . . . year-round;
--Provide a federally administered audit and compliance program.''
Our goals as articulated in the 1990 Clean Air Act debate have been
realized. The RFG-with oxygenates program has resulted in cleaner air,
reduced oil imports and improved energy security, lower regulatory
burdens on the automobile industry, and domestic economic growth, all
at a low cost to the consumer. I am not aware of any other program
available to us that can make such a multiplicity of claims, or that
can be expanded so readily to provide even greater public benefits.
In my opinion, it would do serious harm if we were to tamper with
the one part of the RFG program that ties all of these benefits
together--i.e. the oxygenate standard. That being said, it is
undeniable that, despite all of its benefits and advantages, the RFG
program has exposed a glaring weakness In the nation's petroleum
distribution system. The MTBE detected in drinking water supplies in
California has drawn attention to a serious ancillary problem that
demands immediate solution--namely, leaking underground storage tanks
and distribution systems.
The problem faced by California is leaking gasoline, of which MTBE
is only one of hundreds of components, not the RFG program. Clearly,
this situation is unacceptable. We need to do whatever we can to
prevent gasoline and all its constituent parts from contaminating our
surface water and our groundwater. Gasoline simply does not belong in
our water supplies.
The fact is, however, that simply removing MTBE, or any other
oxygenate, from RFG will not solve the problem of leaking tanks and
pipelines. There are many components of gasoline, and diesel and jet
fuel for that matter, that are dangerous.
It is the leaks we must eliminate, not the oxygenates.
I have asked my staff to work with this committee, and with
Senators Boxer and Feinstein, to identify near-term actions that can be
taken yet this year, prior to adjournment, to address the problem of
groundwater contamination in California. The Federal Government must
assist California in its water remediation efforts and help ensure that
leaking underground storage tanks are fixed as soon as possible. It is
my hope that this problem can be solved immediately without imperiling
the many important, and expanding, benefits of the RFG-with-oxygenates
program.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of the Hon. Brian Bilbray, U.S. Representative from the State
of California
Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank you for making the time on your
committee's calendar to schedule this hearing, on an issue which is of
such great significance to my home State of California. I am very
pleased to be here today to continue my close work with my fellow
Californian, Senator Feinstein, on the legislation we have respectively
introduced in the House (H.R. 630) and here in the Senate (S. 1576). I
also appreciate the interest of our California colleague, Senator
Boxer, a member of this committee, and look forward to the discussions
which will ensue and the testimony of the witnesses you have assembled
on the other panels.
The fundamental facts about S. 1576/H.R. 630 are simple--it would
allow the State's more stringent RFG program to operate in lieu of the
overlapping, less stringent Federal RFG program, so long as the State
program continues to demonstrate that it is achieving equal or better
reductions in overall emissions of air tonics and VOCs.
EPA has recognized that the California program Is more stringent,
and has stated as much in several Federal Register notices. Further, S.
1576/H.R. 630 is content-neutral and performance-based. I strongly
believe that we need to focus more on outcome and less on process in
setting environmental policy and protecting the public health. As a
former member of the California Air Resources Board, I am very proud of
California's role on the cutting edge of such strategies. We will have
further elaboration on this from Mr. Dunlap in the second panel.
This legislation has been carefully constructed to build
exclusively on California's unique, preexisting ability under the Clean
Air Act to operate its own reformulated gasoline program. This is so
for good reason; California has historically had unique air pollution
challenges which require innovative and creative solutions. Congress,
recognizing this, singled it out for special status in Section
211(c)(4)(b) of the Clean Air Act, which states ``Any State for which
application of section 209(a) has at any time been waived under section
209(b) may at any time prescribe and enforce, for the purpose of motor
vehicle mission control, a control or prohibition respecting any fuel
or fuel additive. `` Under Section 209(b)(1) a waiver is provided to
``any State which has adopted standards . . . for the control of
emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to
March 30, 1966. `` California is the only State which meets this
requirement; as a result, this legislation applies exclusively to
California, and without further amendment (and the science to support
or justify such amendment) cannot be utilized by any other State.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to make clear to this committee that I am
highly sensitive to concerns which have been expressed previously that
this bill might somehow be a ``first step'' in efforts to ``undermine''
the national oxygenate requirement. Let me again clarify that this is
neither the intent nor the effect of S. 1576--it is applicable only to
California. Questions about the national program itself may arise and
may be legitimate, but they are a horse of an entirely different color,
and one which may well be saddled up at some point in the future,
perhaps by future Congresses during reauthorization of the Clean Air
Act. However, that is a discussion for another time, and is not what we
are about here today with Senator Feinstein's and my bill. Again, it is
narrowly written to be California-specific and to meet California's
unique circumstances; it cannot be ``piggy-backed'' upon by other
States, without the appropriate congressional action. If other States
should have similar intentions, that is certainly their prerogative--
but that is a matter for individual States to decide, and to pursue on
their own. California's exclusive status under the Act as written, and
this bill which builds upon it, do not provide other States that
opportunity.
Expanding further on this, Mr. Chairman, S. 1576 is content-
neutral. It is written to provide California added flexibility to
continue to meet and improve upon its already stringent emissions
standards. In doing this, it does not mandate the use, nor does it ban
the use, of any fuels additive which might be used to manufacture
cleaner-burning gasoline in California. I would also point out that
this legislation, which I first introduced in the 104th Congress as
H.R. 3518, largely predates the current discussion in California over
MTBE use in reformulated gasoline.
As Senator Feinstein recognized with her introduction, the beauty
of this bill is that it is content neutral and outcome-based. By not
mandating the use of particular ``recipes'' in California's cleaner-
burning gasoline, S. 1576 provides the ability for the State to improve
on its clean air successes, while being able to respond to previously
unforeseen concerns that science may show to impact our environment and
public health.
Science must be what guides us in these endeavors, and sound
science is the foundation on which the California Air Resources Board
has built its stringent reformulated gasoline program. My approach to
this is simple--allow the State to ``set the bar high'' from an
emissions reduction standpoint (as it has done), and allow it to have
the added flexibility or options by which to reach that bar without
mandates, one way or the other. Regardless of one's perspective on MTBE
or any other additive, science is what must dictate this approach, not
government mandates.
At the hearing on H.R. 630 which was held in the Commerce Committee
this past Earth Day, there was testimony which suggested that this
legislation would somehow result in ``dirtier air'' in California, or
the ``weakening'' of our State's stringent standards. The implication
that Senator Feinstein, myself, and the bipartisan legion of our
California colleagues that support the bill would do anything to
willingly undermine California's air quality is outrageous in and of
itself, and in my mind simply indicates an unwillingness to discuss the
bill in a factual manner.
California has the toughest air standards in the world, and is
constantly seeking to improve them. Additionally, the California
program is enforceable federally under its State Implementation Plan
(SIP). It is therefore difficult to envision a scenario under this bill
in which California would do anything but continue to build on the
successes it has achieved to date in reducing air pollution. Both our
responsibility to the public and simple reality indicate that clean air
strategies in California will not be allowed to move backwards; rather
we are working together to pioneer new gains in protecting the public
health. I am certain that Mr. Dunlap will confirm California's resolve
in this regard.
A last word on the public health merits of this bill, Mr. Chairman.
At the Earth Day hearing on H.R. 630, I asked that several levers of
support for the Bilbray/Feinstein legislation be included in the
record. I do not wish to be redundant, but I do believe it is important
for the Senators on this committee to be aware of this significant
measure of support--from the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District, the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the Santa Barbara County
Air Pollution Control District, and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District, among others. Such an accounting from the
ranks of California's clean air professionals further underscores the
public health-oriented foundation of this legislation, and I would
submit these letters to the record for the committee's consideration.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know that there have been concerns
expressed by several Members, Senators, and other stakeholders, to
which I know you are also sensitive, not about the practical effects of
S. 1576 but about the potential for ``opening up'' the Clean Air Act. I
am frankly pleased at the unanimity which is found here, and am
reassured to see so many colleagues and other interested parties on the
same proverbial page with Senator Feinstein and I on this. We have
concerns about ``opening up the Act'' also. That is why the bill is
drafted as narrowly as it is, and is structured to build upon
California's existing unique status under the Clean Air Act. This bill
is quite simply a narrow, targeted ``fix'' to strengthen a California-
specific section of the Act.
This committee, and the House Commerce Committee, has on several
occasions in recent years demonstrated its ability to shepherd though
the legislative process bipartisan ``rifle-shot'' amendments to the
Act, without ``opening it up''. I believe that such a scenario could be
repeated in this instance, Mr. Chairman, and would have the utmost
confidence in your ability to do so. I have similar confidence in
Chairman Bilirakis and Chairman Bliley, both of whom have publicly
stated their willingness to maintain the integrity of this legislation.
I recognize that time is short in this session, and understand the
concerns expressed by other stakeholders about the Act. However, given
the assurances which have been delivered, I feel that we ought to be
able to move forward in discussions of the bill without being
distracted by concerns about ``opening'' the Act.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, since the 104th Congress, I have tried
to be as plain as I can about my intent with this bill, and believe
that while differences in perspective may remain, there are no
surprises here. It is my hope that the committee's time today will not
be excessively occupied with extensive and redundant discussion of
hypotheticals and conjecture. I would respectively submit that among
the parties which have been and are in involved and interested in this
issue, the practical effect of this bill is clear, and has been
vigorously and thoroughly contemplated now for the better part of two
Congresses.
What we can and should talk about and focus on today is the hard
science and the facts which underlie the bill. In essence, California
has different clean air needs than the rest of the nation. The Clean
Air Act already reflects this. Going a step further, California has
built the proverbial ``better mousetrap'', one which, with all due
respect, may not have been envisioned during completion of the Clean
Air Act amendments of 1990. S. 1576/H.R. 630 will build on those
accomplishments to maximize the State's ability within the Act to
address and improve upon its clean air strategies. This can occur
without opening up the Act, or creating unmerited loopholes for other
States without the requisite Congressional review. These are the facts
that I hope will be discussed here today, and I look forward to the
testimony of the witnesses.
On MTBE specifically, Mr. Chairman, I strongly suggest that we
continue to be guided by science. We know there have been significant
benefits in reducing smog-forming compounds throughout California as a
direct result of cleaner-burning gasoline. I have a series of newspaper
articles which reflect this, and which I would ask to be included in
the record. On groundwater contamination, we know that there are
problems with plumes resulting from tank leaks and spills, and are
moving to address these. We are closer to having a much better
understanding of the impacts of MTBE, from the University of California
study and the California Energy Commission study. I will defer to Mr.
Dunlap for an update on the status of those and other research efforts.
We must adhere to science even in the face of the difficult
situations we face in parts of California which have experienced
problems with groundwater contamination from MTBE. Quite clearly, Mr.
Chairman, there are Q components of gasoline which belong in our
drinking water, MTBE among them, and we must pursue every effort to
correct and mitigate for the leakage and contamination problems which
have been documented throughout our State. However, as the EPA has
pointed out, it is important to compare the risks of any gasoline
additive to the components of gasoline which it replaces. We must keep
in mind that while MTBE certainly warrants additional careful research,
its use in California's cleaner-burning gasoline has reduced
considerably the presence of benzene, which is a known and dangerous
human carcinogen.
I strongly believe that the flexibility provided under Senator
Feinstein's and my legislation provide the tools California needs to
best manage and respond to this situation. Again, the beauty of the
bill is in the outcome-based process of providing the flexibility
needed to continue to produce CBG by moving away from mandates,
flexibility is provided also for responding to other public health
concerns. As science provides us with the best strategies for
responding to these concerns, we can and must continue to act swiftly
to address them.
As the Secretary of the California EPA, Peter Rooney, testified to
this committee on this issue previously (12/9/97) ``The problem we are
discussing here today is yet another example of what can happen when
the Federal Government tells States not just what to do, but how to do
it. Do not mandate technology. Set standards, hold us to them, but
allow us to determine how best to meet them--in this case, through
California's far stricter reformulated gasoline requirements that build
in flexibility for producers.''
In conclusion, I would like to again thank Senator Feinstein for
her leadership on this important matter, and appreciate your
consideration and that of this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of John D. Dunlap III, Chairman, Air Resources Board,
California Environmental Protection Agency
Thank you, Chairman Chafee and members of the committee for holding
today's hearing on S. 1576, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein. On
behalf of Governor Pete Wilson and Cal/EPA Secretary Peter Rooney, I
appreciate the opportunity to provide California's thoughts on the
measure before you today.
The Wilson Administration supports S. 1576, which would enable
California's cleaner-burning gasoline program to reduce its dependence
on MTBE and other oxygenated gasoline additives.
As the only State with its own gasoline program, California is in a
unique legal and institutional position to be a proving ground for what
can be accomplished nationally with a performance-based environmental
program.
S. 1576 represents an opportunity for the entire nation to observe
the outcome of California's trailblazing program. We also believe this
bill can help California respond rationally and effectively to public
concern over MTBE. If we are successful, the Federal Government would
benefit from our experience with a market-oriented and performance-
based approach. For these reasons, Congress ought to quickly pass S.
1576 and Rep. Brian Bilbray's H.R. 630, rather than waiting many months
or even years to try to craft controversial national changes to the
Federal oxygenate program.
As you probably know, California faces our nation's greatest air-
quality challenges. Seven of the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest
smog levels in the United States are in California. Because of these
challenges, California has done more than any other State to reduce air
pollution. In keeping with our tradition of leadership, California in
1996 introduced the world's cleanest gasoline.
The use of cleaner-burning gasoline in 1996 reduced peak smog
levels by an average of 10 percent in Greater Los Angeles and 12
percent in Sacramento. No other single measure in California's history
ever reduced air pollution so dramatically in its first year.
And yet, this unparalleled success has been overshadowed by public
concern over the use of MTBE to meet Federal requirements for the
addition of oxygen to gasoline.
In 1990, the U.S. Congress approved an amendment to the Federal
Clean Air Act mandating the use of gasoline containing 2 percent oxygen
by weight in regions classified as being in severe or extreme non-
attainment for the Federal ozone standard. To remain in compliance with
this Federal requirement, about 70 percent of the gasoline used in
California during a given year must contain 2 percent oxygen by weight,
year-round, with no exceptions. This includes gasoline used in the
Greater Los Angeles area, Ventura County, San Diego and the greater
Sacramento area.
In 1991, the year following the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments,
the Air Resources Board (ARB) established its own cleaner-burning
gasoline specifications. We went ahead with our own specifications
because we determined that Federal Reformulated Gasoline would not
provide sufficient clean-air benefits to enable California to attain
the Federal ozone standard.
California's gasoline provides about twice the air-quality benefits
of Federal Reformulated Gasoline. California gasoline reduces smog-
forming emissions from motor vehicles by about 15 percent, compared to
a 7 to 8 percent reduction from the current Federal gasoline.
The ARB has always viewed gasoline oxygenates such as MTBE as an
important option that should be available to refiners for making
cleaner-burning petroleum products. At the same time, it is possible to
make commercial quantities of cleaner-burning gasoline without mandated
levels of oxygenated additives. We believe strongly that Federal and
State law should set content neutral performance standards for refiners
to meet, rather than prescribing oxygen levels.
However, given the fact that most California gasoline was subject
to the Federal oxygen requirement, the ARB in 1991 felt compelled to
include the Federal oxygen requirement in its cleaner-burning gasoline
specifications. Thus, California was committed to the use of oxygenated
gasoline in order to remain consistent with the requirements of the
Federal Clean Air Act.
The story does not end there. In 1994, California added flexibility
to its gasoline regulations by approving the use of a predictive model.
This model, developed by ARB with data from emissions tests involving a
large number of motor vehicles and fuels, predicts emissions from
various gasoline formulations.
If a refiner wishes to produce gasoline that varies from the ARB
fuel specifications, including the oxygen requirement, it can do so
provided that the predictive model indicates there will be no increase
in emissions.
The predictive model changed our cleaner-burning gasoline program
from a command-and-control program based on rigid fuels specifications
to a ``performance-based program'' in which refiners concentrate on
meeting emissions standards.
Because of the predictive model, refiners have incentives to
develop innovative fuel formulations that offer advantages over
conventional formulations.
Refiners also have the ability to evolve with changes in technology
and market conditions, rather than remain rooted in the mindset that
prevailed when the original specifications were adopted.
Refiners in Northern California routinely use the predictive model
to reduce the oxygen content of their gasoline. One refiner is now
producing and selling non-oxygenated gasoline. This is possible because
the Federal oxygen requirement does not apply to most Northern
California gasoline.
Incredibly, the Federal oxygen rule prevents those refiners from
selling the Northern California gasoline with reduced or no oxygenates
in Southern California, even though the Northern California gasoline
provides twice the clean air benefits required by the Federal
Government.
The Federal oxygen rule severely limits the flexibility that the
ARB has given refiners of California gasoline. As I just pointed out,
our predictive model still requires California gasoline to meet our
State standards, which provide twice the clean-air benefits required by
the Federal Government. The Federal oxygen rule may serve a purpose in
the other 49 States, which do not have their own fuel specifications.
But in California, which is the only State with its own comprehensive
fuel standards, the Federal oxygen rule serves no useful purpose. It
does not take pollutants out of the air; it only limits refiners'
ability to develop the best ways to meet or improve upon our standards.
The growing public concern over MTBE provides California and the
Congress with an important reason to support this bill. No Federal or
State law mandates MTBE. But refiners have chosen to use MTBE in
virtually all California gasoline, because it represents the most
practical way by far to meet the oxygen requirement. Unfortunately,
MTBE releases have severely impacted drinking-water supplies in the
City of Santa Monica and the South Lake Tahoe area. MTBE also has been
found at lower concentrations in other areas of the State, which has
sparked widespread concern.
This concern is driven, in part, because the Federal oxygen rule
gives refiners no viable alternative to the widespread use of MTBE in
California. This had led many Californians to wrongly perceive that
cleaner-burning gasoline represents a tradeoff between clean air and
clean water. S. 1576 will correct that.
I am NOT suggesting that S. 1576 will prevent MTBE releases into
water--California's underground tank upgrade program is the primary
measure for protecting water from contamination by all fuel components.
I am NOT suggesting that S. 1576 represents a ban or restriction on
the use of MTBE; here again, let me emphasize that the bill is content-
neutral. MTBE should remain an option for all refiners.
But the key word here is ``option''. There is no inherent reason
why cleaner burning gasoline must have 2 percent MTBE or any other
oxygenate by weight. California refiners have shown that it is possible
to make cleaner-burning gasoline with 1 percent oxygen, and even no
oxygen at all.
By exempting California from the Federal oxygen rule, S. 1576 would
give refiners the option of reducing the MTBE content of their gas
throughout California. The bill would give refiners more options for
using other oxygenates, such as ethanol. I also believe S. 1576 would
ease some of the public concern over MTBE, because the public would see
MTBE use evolve to a level that balances its benefits as a clean-fuels
additive with the need to manage it as a potential water contaminant.
The bill still requires California gasoline to meet the world's
cleanest standards. California needs all the air-quality benefits it is
receiving currently from cleaner-burning gasoline, and we will not
support any action that reduces those benefits. S. 1576 simply allows
refiners to take full advantage of the flexible fuel standards that
have reduced air pollution and increased protection of the public
health in my State.
In closing, I must emphasize again that S. 1576 represents an
opportunity for California and the nation. As the only State with its
own fuels program, California is a proving ground for what can be
accomplished nationally. California refineries are the most modernized
in the country. California's air quality infrastructure--including the
nation's most sophisticated and extensive air monitoring network--
enables us to verify the success of our gasoline program.
S. 1576 will allow our flexible gasoline program to provide its
best response to public concern over MTBE. If our program deals
successfully with that concern, the Federal Government at least would
have the option of using California's experience as it addresses MTBE
concerns nationally.
As long as California is subject to the Federal oxygen rule, our
ability to respond to MTBE concerns will be extremely limited. The
burden of addressing the growing unease over MTBE in California and
other States will come full-force to the nation's capital, and it will
remain here in the nation's capital.
I urge the committee to act favorably on S. 1576 as swiftly as
possible. Thank you.
__________
Statement of Edward O. Sullivan, Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Protection, Augusta, Maine
Good afternoon. Chairman Chafee and members of the committee. I am
Ned Sullivan, commissioner of the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, and I am pleased to come before you to share Maine's
experience with the Federal reformulated gasoline program and with the
oxygenate MTBE.
History of Maine's participation in the reformulated gasoline program
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required that reformulated
gasoline be sold in the nation's worst ozone nonattainment areas. The
law also provided that a State with lesser ozone nonattainment problems
could participate in ('' opt into'' ) the program by making a formal
request to the EPA administrator.
In 1991, as part of a regional action to achieve and maintain
attainment with the Federal ozone standard, Maine's Governor John
McKernan requested that the entire State participate in the program.
EPA responded that Maine could only ``opt in'' counties described as
marginal nonattainment or worse.
Maine eventually proceeded with RFG sales in 7 counties. The
program was officially implemented January 1, 1995.
The RFG blend is the same one sold in parts or all of 11 northeast
States and the District of Columbia. As required by Federal law, it
must contain at least 2 percent oxygen. This is accomplished by adding
an ``oxygenate'', which in Maine and most States, is MTBE.
Benefits provided by Maine's RFG program
The RFG program accounts for nearly one-third of the hydrocarbon
emissions reductions Maine is required to achieve under the Clean Air
Act. The program provides reductions comparable to a state-of-the-art
vehicle emissions testing program--an option that was soundly rejected
by Maine voters and lawmakers. As the remaining core component of
Maine's Clean Air Plan, RFG was projected to reduce the amount of
hydrocarbons emitted to Maine's air by seven tons per summer weekday.
Air quality in Maine has improved. Since the program has been in
force, we have continued to see a downward trend in the number of days
that monitored ozone levels exceed the Federal 1-hour standard. This
has happened despite a slight increase in average temperature, which
would be expected to trigger additional episodes. (CHART)
The improved air quality has been recognized by EPA, which has
revoked the 1-hour ozone standard for four counties, effectively
considering them to be in attainment. Maine and EPA are reviewing the
summer's ozone data to determine whether additional counties can also
be given a clean bill of health under the 1-hour standard.
In addition, we have monitored a reduction in the toxic compounds
detected in ambient air. Motor vehicles are estimated to account for
roughly fifty percent of all cancers associated with exposure to air
toxins. However, RFG burns more cleanly and more completely destroys
toxic components of gasoline, making the emissions themselves less
poisonous. More to the point today, MTBE, as the oxygenate component of
RFG, replaces some of the benzene in conventionally-blended gasoline.
(CHART) The first round of monitoring since RFG has been in use in
Maine has shown a 22.5 percent reduction in benzene levels of ambient
air. Benzene is a known carcinogen.
According to a study conducted by the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), the cancer risk reduction
associated with the use of RFG in the Northeast ranges from a low of 9
percent to a high of 12 percent as compared to conventional gasoline.
Public and legislative concern regarding Maine's RFG program
Despite these benefits, Maine people have been concerned about RFG
use since before the program was even implemented. Health risk
implications as well as cost and performance considerations were
examined during public hearings and meetings.
During the first 2 months of the program (January and February
1995), the State's Bureau of Health received numerous complaints
regarding the new gasoline blend. They included dizziness,
lightheadedness and respiratory symptoms. Skin irritations were also
reported. In March 1995, Governor King chartered a task force of health
professionals to survey the literature on health risks, evaluate the
health problems reported by Maine people, and consider the pros and
cons, from a health perspective, of continuing to use RFG. The task
force did not recommend banning RFG but did call for more air sampling
and an additional study of MTBE health effects.
In every legislative session since January 1995, a bill has been
introduced to terminate Maine's RFG program. In every instance, the
primary argument against the program has been the health and
environmental risks that some associate with MTBE. The resulting
debates and calls for additional studies have thus far enabled the
program to remain the cornerstone of Maine's clean air plan, albeit
with shaky support.
During the last session, the State Bureau of Health gained
legislative support for a drinking water standard for MTBE. The State
toxicologist proposed that the standard be 35 ppb, and that was adopted
by the legislature after considerable discussion. It was also
understood at that time that the State's environmental protection
agency (DEP) would take the more conservative position of cleaning up
any water supply showing 25 ppb.
MTBE and Maine's ground water
Maine's Department of Environmental Protection first documented
MTBE in ground water in 1985, 10 years before MTBE-containing RFG was
sold in Maine. The contamination was linked to leaking underground or
above ground gasoline storage tanks. We are now nearing completion of
our underground storage tank replacement program, having removed more
than 30,000 or 98 percent of them.
This past June, I reported to the Maine State Legislature on the
levels of MTBE in drinking water supplies. Approximately 84 percent of
the private wells showing detectable levels of MTBE had concentrations
below DEP's 25 ppb threshold for taking action. Seven percent exceeded
the State Bureau of Health's health guideline which was then 50 ppb. We
are now updating our figures to address the recent adoption of a new
health standard.
Also in June, the Bureau of Health reported to Governor King and
the legislature that 23 of 333 public water supplies (approximately 7
percent ) had detectable levels of MTBE. The mean concentration was 2.8
ppb.
Despite this history, public concern heightened sharply this spring
as a string of contamination events focussed even more public attention
on the potential for MTBE contamination of Maine's ground water.
Notably, more than 60 percent of the population of Maine rely on wells
for their drinking water supplies.
Briefly, those events included:
Gasoline contamination at a new state-of-the-art station and
convenience store located 700 and 1,100 feet respectively from two
public wells serving 3,000 customers in a growing community in southern
Maine. MTBE was detected at trace levels in both wells: fortunately
these levels appear to have peaked at approximately 3 ppb and are
declining. MTBE at the gas station, however, reached 7,140 ppb and 499
ppb at an off-site monitoring well. The gasoline station has been shut
down since April. The exact source of the contamination has not been
pinpointed.
In May, private well contamination by MTBE was discovered in the
adjoining town. Twenty-four wells had some detectable levels of the
compound, with eleven showing contamination requiring filtration. The
current thesis is that a car accident resulting in the spill of a small
amount of gasoline led to this widespread problem.
During the same week in May, MTBE at nearly 500 ppb was detected in
a well supplying an elementary school. The water is now being filtered
for washing and the school is relying on bottled water for drinking.
One new well has been dug and another may be needed to fully rectify
the problem. Again the cause seems to be spillage from a vehicle on
site. The amount spilled was probably quite small.
In each instance, the public has seen high visibility
contamination, by a compound many have already begun to distrust,
caused by a relatively small, or even unknown, accident. This has
contributed significantly to public anxiety.
Governor King has acted quickly and decisively by ordering that all
public wells and 1000 private wells throughout the State be tested to
determine the extent to which MTBE is showing up in Maine's drinking
water. He has also ordered DEP to study alternatives to the current RFG
formulation in the event that our study supports a decision to cease
using MTBE. In addition, we are exploring measures to protect our
ground water from new spills or leaks. Decisions will be made on next
steps later this month once the test results have been analyzed.
Problem definition and proposed solution
We have quickly found ourselves in the midst of a public policy
dilemma. We recognize the real clean air benefits produced in a
relatively short time as a result of using MTBE-containing RFG in
Maine. On the other hand, there appears to be growing evidence that
this same product is causing water quality problems that may prove to
be significant.
Given the need to maintain the improvements we have recorded in air
quality, and the commitment to make additional strides toward cleaner
air, we must continue to aggressively address pollution caused by
petroleum-powered motor vehicles.
The problem seems to be the inflexibility posed by the Federal
definition of RFG. It requires the use of oxygenates like MTBE at
specified levels.
With growing public concerns, unfinished studies and the continuing
need to develop a sound data base regarding the benefits and risks
associated with MTBE, this requirement limits our options. It limits
our ability to switch to other fuels that might not contain as much, or
even any, oxygenate, yet offer the same, or greater, environmental
benefit, at less environmental risk. It dictates a control strategy
that may not be the best for Maine.
In contrast, with the exception of its mandate for a vehicle
emissions testing program in Ozone Transport Region States, the Clean
Air Act often sets performance standards while allowing flexibility as
to how the goals are achieved. A prime example of this is the
development of State plans to reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds by 15 percent. There are Federal guidelines and clear
performance standards to be met, but the plans need not fit a specified
template.
I believe that this should also be the model for RFG. Federal and
State law should set content-neutral performance standards for gasoline
that will provide the required air quality benefits: these same laws
should not set prescriptive content volumes for refiners to meet.
Because they now do, Maine finds itself constrained as we try to
develop the best clean air strategy. As a State we consume a tiny
fraction of the national gasoline market. We are subject to a mandate
that dictates a particular approach to our region's needs. We don't
have the flexibility, let alone the clout, do what may be best for our
State.
The States can meet the requirements and goals of the Clean Air
Act, with your help. By setting tight performance standards instead of
product mandates, the Federal Government paves the way for achieving
the best results at least cost . . . results that tolerate no
environmental backsliding but results that avoid environmental risk-
shifting.
In conclusion, I would urge you to support legislation that would
provide such flexibility nationwide. I would be happy to work with the
committee in crafting such legislation.
Thank you for your attention.
__________
Statement of Daniel S. Greenbaum, President, Health Effects Institute
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, and members of the committee, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today to present
the views of the Health Effects Institute (HEI) on the health effects
of MTBE in gasoline. My name is Dan Greenbaum, and I am President of
HEI, an independent, not-for-profit research institute, funded jointly
by U.S. EPA and industry to provide high-quality, impartial, and
relevant science on the health effects of air pollution to inform
public and private decisions.
HEI, as one part of its larger strategic research plan for air
pollution, has been engaged in scientific assessment and research on
MTBE and other oxygenates added to gasoline for several years. In 1995
and 1996, at the request of the White House Of lice of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), and of the Administrator of EPA, we convened
an Expert Panel to review all existing science on exposure to and
health effects from the addition of MTBE and Ethanol to gasoline. Their
report, The Potential Health Effects of Oxygenates Added to Gasoline,
which I will present to you today, became part of the larger
Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels completed by OSTP last year.
Following that report, HEI launched a targeted program of studies to
answer key remaining questions about these oxygenates, most notably the
first studies of the potential interaction of MTBE in a mixture with
gasoline, and studies comparing the body's metabolism of MTBE with
other additives such as ETBE and TAME.
The Potential Health Effects of Oxygenates Added to Gasoline
In April 1996, the HEI Oxygenates Evaluation Committee--consisting
of leading experts in toxicology, epidemiology, cancer, reproduction
and development, and exposure, and chaired by the former Director of
the National Cancer Institute Dr. Arthur Upton--issued the report of
its 9-month review of all available data on the health effects of
oxygenates added to gasoline. This study, which involved detailed
review of over 300 individual studies of MTBE and ethanol, looked at
the detailed effects of each substance and found that there were a
number of potential short term and cancer health effects for MTBE whose
existence in humans needed further investigation, but that there were
not likely to be any health effects from ethanol at the levels to which
most people would be exposed. The Committee then attempted to place the
MTBE effects in the context of what the scientific community knows
about the effects of exposure to vapors and emissions from gasoline
that does not contain oxygenates. Overall, the Committee concluded
that:
The potential health effects of exposure to components of
conventional gasoline (without oxygenates) include short-tern and
cancer effects similar to those that could result from exposure to
gasoline containing oxygenates.
Adding oxygenates to gasoline can reduce the emission of carbon
monoxide and benzene from motor vehicles, and thereby lower certain
risks to members of the population. At the same time, using oxygenates
increases exposure to aldehydes, which are carcinogenic in animals, and
to the oxygenates themselves.
Adding oxygenates is unlikely to substantially increase the health
risks associated with fuel used in motor vehicles; hence the potential
health risks of oxygenates are not sufficient to warrant an immediate
reduction in oxygenate use at this time. However, a number of important
questions need to be answered if these substances are to continue in
widespread use over the long term.
For the committee's benefit, I have attached a list of the members
of the Oxygenates Evaluation Committee, and a copy of the report's
executive summary. We have also provided the full report to your staff.
Further Analyses and Research on Oxygenates in Gasoline
Subsequent to the release of the HEI report, research and analyses
continued on several fronts:
The Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels In June, 1997, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy issued the results of its
comprehensive review of the use of oxygenates in fuel. This review,
which incorporated the HEI findings on health effects, and also
analyzed the effects of oxygenates on fuel economy, engine performance,
and water quality, drew similar conclusions to those of HEI on the
health effects of MTBE. In reviewing the health effects, the
Interagency Task Force also conducted a preliminary quantitative risk
assessment for MTBE, based on animal cancer data, and concluded that:
'' The estimated upper-bound cancer unit risks for MTBE are similar
to or slightly less than those for fully vaporized conventional
gasoline, substantially less than that for benzene, a minor constituent
in gasoline that is classified as a know human carcinogen; and more
than 100 times less than that for 1,3-butadiene, a carcinogenic
emission product of incomplete fuel combustion.''
The World Health Organization Earlier this year, the International
Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) of the World Health Organization
issued its Environmental Health Criteria for MTBE. They reached many
conclusions similar to those of HEI and the Interagency Report and, as
a result of an detailed review of the data on MTBE and cancer,
concluded that:
'' Based on these data, MTBE should be considered a rodent
carcinogen. MTBE is not genotoxic and the carcinogenic response is only
evident at high levels of exposure that also induce other adverse
effects. The available data are inconclusive and prohibit their use for
human carcinogenic risk assessment until outstanding complications in
their interpretation have been addressed.''
New research In keeping with the needs identified in the HEI
report, additional research, funded by HEI, by industry in response to
U.S. EPA requirements under section 211 of the Clean Air Act, and by
other government agencies has gone forward to answer key questions,
including understanding better (1) the way MTBE and other oxygenates
such as ETBE and TAME are metabolized by the body, (2) how MTBE might
cause cancer, and (3) the effects of MTBE-gasoline mixtures.
In addition, in response to concerns about the potential effects of
MTBE in drinking water, the State of California in October, 1997
enacted legislation requiring a comprehensive analysis of the health
and environmental significance of MTBE and other oxygenates by the
University of California, and the U.S. EPA issued in April of this year
a draft Research Strategy for Oxygenates in Water.
The studies underway as a result of these efforts are expected to
provide new information over the next 12 to 18 months. To date,
however, relatively few studies have been completed beyond those
reviewed in the HEI Oxygenates Study.
The Issue of MTBE in Water Supplies
Both the HEI and the Interagency Task Force reports identified
reports of water contamination by MTBE as a potential route of
exposure, but noted that there were relatively few data on the extent
of such contamination, or the health effects of ingesting rather than
inhaling MTBE. The Interagency Report also noted that MTBE appears to
move faster in ground water and is more resistant to biodgradation than
other components of gasoline, although the data on this issue,
particularly from field studies, is limited.
Given concerns about potential contamination of drinking water,
California in 1991 established an ``action level'' for MTBE in drinking
water of 35 <greek-m>g/L, and U.S. EPA, in December, 1997, published a
drinking Water Advisory for MTBE that identified the level of 20--40
<greek-m>g/L as a level below which health effects are unlikely, and
above which water users are likely to smell and/or taste MTBE before
levels become unhealthful. Most recently, California is considering the
establishment, in response to recent legislation, of a Maximum
Contaminant Level, or ``goal'' of 12.5 <greek-m>g/L.
In recent years, in response to drinking water concerns, there has
been an increase in the sampling of water supplies for MTBE, especially
in California. To date, the results of that sampling confirm the
findings in the Interagency Report that MTBE is detected in a
relatively small number of water sources of those tested, and of those
where it is detected, relatively few have levels above existing or
proposed levels of concern. Specifically, as of February, 1998,
California had tested 24 percent (2,638) of all water sources in the
State, and detected MTBE in 1.3 percent (34) of those sources. Of those
34 where MTBE was detected, five sources, which had been contaminated
by leaking underground storage tanks, had levels in excess of the
current California action level, and nine sources appeared to have
levels exceeding the currently proposed M.C.L.
Thus, it appears that contamination to date has not been
widespread, but that potential drinking water contamination by MTBE
continues to be of some concern and regular monitoring, particularly of
wells located near underground storage tanks, may be appropriate.
Summary and Conclusions
In closing, let me thank the committee again for this opportunity
to testify, and summarize the key points of my comments:
First, reviews of the health effects of MTBE in gasoline by HEI and
others have concluded that although potential health effects have been
identified, the use of oxygenates in gasoline does not appear to
substantially increase the risk of health effects from inhalation when
compared to gasoline without oxygenates.
Second, questions about these health effects continue, and HEI,
government agencies, and industry groups have studies underway to
address them; and
Third, incidents of high levels of contamination of water supplies
with MTBE have increased concerns about the health effects of ingesting
MTBE, although more comprehensive sampling has suggested that such
high-contamination incidents are relatively isolated to intense
contamination incidents such as leaking underground storage tanks.
Continued regular monitoring of water supplies may be appropriate to
ensure that such risks do not become more widespread.
Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have, and to provide other information that might
help the committee's efforts.
__________
Statement by Al Jessel, Senior Fuels Specialist of Chevron Products
Company
I. Introduction:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to be here before the
committee today to testify in support of S. 1576. My name is Al Jessel,
and I am a Senior Fuels Specialist of Chevron Products Company. Chevron
Products Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chevron Corporation,
which is an international energy and chemicals company with operations
and facilities located throughout the world. Chevron is the largest
producer of California cleaner burning gasoline (CBG).
Chevron supports S. 1576 introduced by Senator Feinstein in the
Senate, and similar legislation, H.R. 630, introduced by Congressman
Bilbray and cosponsored by 48 other California members in the House of
Representatives. This legislation would apply only to California, and
would remove the duplication and conflict between the requirements of
the Federal reformulated gasoline program and California reformulated
gasoline program. I hope that after you hear the discussion today, and
give this legislation its due consideration, you will move this
legislation through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
and support its enactment into law.
II. History of California Fuels Authority Under the Clean Air Act
Congress has long recognized the serious and unique air quality
concerns in the State of California and allowed the State to establish
its own fuel regulations. Prior to 1970, California was free to
regulate fuels on its own. In the 1970 Clean Air Act, Congress
specifically included a waiver from Federal preemption for California
fuel regulations in section 211(c)(4)(B) to preserve California's
authority to regulate fuels. While preempting other States and
localities from establishing fuel regulations except as needed and
approved as part of a State Implementation Plan, Congress allowed
California, alone among the States, the express authority in the 1970
Clean Air Act to establish its own statewide fuel regulations to help
improve air quality.
From 1970 to 1990, California used this authority to establish
numerous State fuel regulations. These included regulations such as:
(1) maximum sulfur content in 1975, (2) maximum (Reid) vapor pressure
in 1975, (3) reduced lead content in 1976, (4) regulation of manganese
content in 1977, and (5) California Phase 1 reformulated gasoline in
1990.
California Phase 1 RFG requirements adopted in September 1990
provided new specifications for (Reid) vapor pressure, detergents, and
deposit control additives, in addition to the complete phase out of
lead in gasoline. These regulations became effective on January 1,
1992. At the same time California adopted Phase 1 RFG requirements, the
State Air Resources Board indicated its intention to propose a more
comprehensive set of specifications for a reformulated or ``cleaner''
burning gasoline. In November 1991 California adopted those Phase 2 RFG
requirements, which became effective on March 1, 1996. California Phase
2 RFG was introduced into the marketplace beginning with the ozone
season in 1996 and has been sold year-round since that time.
In 1990, however, Congress reauthorized the Clean Air Act and added
provisions for Federal reformulated gasoline in the nine cities with
the worst summertime ozone conditions. Included on that list were two
cities in California--Los Angeles and San Diego. Also included were
provisions allowing other cities to opt into the Federal RFG program,
as well as mandatory participation if cities were ``bumped'' up to
``severe'' or ``extreme'' classification. Since 1990, a third
California city--Sacramento has been added to the list of locations
where Federal RFG requirements must be met. Therefore, practically
speaking, the vast majority of gasoline sold in California falls under
both the Federal rules and the more stringent State rules.
Unfortunately, the 1990 Federal RFG provisions were established
under a different portion of the Clean Air Act--section 211(k)--than
the portion containing the original California fuels waiver--i.e.,
section 211(c)(4)(B). The 1990 Amendments were silent on the
relationship between the new Federal RFG requirements in section 211
(k), and the previously-existing California authority to establish its
own fuel regulations under section 211(c)(4)(B). This silence has led
to duplicative and overlapping State and Federal requirements on the
California gasoline program. S. 1576 is intended to resolve this and
fill the gap left in the Clean Air Act's intent thereby making it clear
that California can develop its own fuels program without a
counterproductive Federal overlay.
III. Comparison Between California and Federal RFG Programs
There are at least four major points of comparison between the
California and Federal RFG programs.
First and foremost, the California CBG program provides greater
emission reductions than does the Federal program. For reformulated
gasoline currently in the marketplace, California CBG reduces nitrogen
oxides (NOx) by 14 percent over conventional gasoline compared to the
less than 1 percent for Federal (Phase I) RFG. In the year 2000 when
Phase II Federal reformulated gasoline with its 6.8 percent NOx
reduction becomes available, California CBG will still have lower
emissions. EPA, in reviewing California's gasoline program has stated:
``EPA believes that the standards for California gasoline are as
stringent or more stringent than the proposed content and performance
standards for Federal reformulated gasoline.'' (58FR11722, February 26,
1993).
Second, Similar to Federal RFG, California allows refiners to use a
``predictive model'' or ``test certification'' to certify gasoline
formulations as long as California's strict emissions performance
requirements are met. California limits ranges for eight different
parameters in formulating gasoline, and additionally refiners must also
meet octane requirements for automobile performance. Overlaying the
Federal RFG program simply imposes further constraints on an already
constrained system without enhancing air quality.
Third. enforcement of the California CBG program is based on
periodic testing of gasoline from the various refiners to insure
California CBG meets all State requirements. We have found this to be a
very effective enforcement program. The Federal program relies more on
self-monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping, which we believe is less
effective yet adds cost and complexity with no measurable air quality
benefit. While EPA has recognized CARB's ability to enforce its rules
effectively and has provided partial exemption for California from
Federal enforcement mechanisms, the exemption sunsets at the end of
1999. Passage of S. 1576 would eliminate this unnecessary overlap.
Finally. Federal reformulated gasoline requires year-round oxygen
as mandated in the 1990 Amendments, but is not required by California
rules in the summer, or in the winter in a significant portion of the
State. California's unique air quality problems have required unique
solutions, among them a more stringent reformulated gasoline. To make
the more stringent California formulations, refiners need flexibility
to optimize how they blend gasoline, and make it cost-effectively. The
oxygen mandate reduces this flexibility without providing an air
quality benefit in the summer for ozone control. It is the stringent
performance specifications for California CBG. not the oxygen content,
that drives the exceptional improvements in air quality resulting from
use of this gasoline.
Of most recent concern to Californians is the environmental impact
of MTBE use. Several drinking water supplies have become contaminated
with MTBE, the most widely-used oxygenate in California gasoline.
Within Chevron, we have instituted a nationwide program to look at all
of our gasoline handling systems and processes, especially those
handling oxygenated gasoline. We have assessed what additional
safeguards beyond those required under Federal and State laws we might
implement to further minimize the potential for gasoline components
contaminating drinking water sources. From that assessment we
instituted a series of additional company control measures to further
reduce the potential of release of gasoline into the environment.
The Federal oxygen mandate coupled with the more stringent
California CBG emission reduction requirements, led refiners to use
methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE, as the only practical oxygenate
in California. While MTBE has many advantages in helping to meet
California gasoline specifications, it also has a disadvantage common
to all gasoline oxygenates, its high water solubility which makes it
both more mobile and more difficult to remove from water than other
gasoline components.
The public in California--our customers--have become so concerned
about MTBE that a ban was only narrowly averted in the California
legislature last year. Legislature mandated studies will be complete
early next year at which time the Governor is required to make
decisions about the future of MTBE in California gasoline.
Interestingly, the Federal oxygen content mandate, the stringency
of the California CBG rules, and California's gasoline distribution
system have restricted the use of some oxygenates like ethanol. Ethanol
would make a good California gasoline blending component under certain
circumstances. We believe the Federal mandate actually limits our
ability to use ethanol in California CBG and I'm sure this was an
unintended consequence.
We have made a great effort in California to caution against the
precipitous banning of oxygenates as this opposite extreme would
inevitably bring with it its own set of unintended consequences such as
disruption of a market that is already tightly constrained. The far
better first step toward a solution is to remove the Federal
overlapping requirement as proposed in S. 1576.
IV. Reasons S. 1576 is Needed and Benefits
S. 1576 sponsored by Senator Feinstein, and H.R. 630 by Congressman
Bilbray would neither ban nor mandate fuel formulations, but would
allow each California fuel provider to individually choose to produce
the most cost-effective and environmentally desirable formulation while
meeting the State's rigid emission reduction requirements. In fact, it
would allow the State's performance-based program to work as it was
intended by California and as Congress allowed for two decades from
1970 to 1990.
Note the passage of S. 1576 is structured to impact only States
that are allowed under the Clean Air Act to regulate their own fuels
(without Federal preemption)--and California is the only such State.
Yet even with the passage of S. 1576, Federal oversight of the
California RFG program will continue--as it rightly should--through the
EPA's responsibility for assuring that the California State
Implementation Plan for improving air quality is adequate and is
carried out. Federal oversight will continue, but the State's
reformulated gasoline program will benefit from more flexibility to
refiners than exists today.
The benefits of S. 1576 include:
1. Optimizing product formulation--Because California RFG has
stricter emission reduction requirements, refiners need more
flexibility in how they make their fuels. The Air Resources Board has
recognized this need and has provided much of the needed flexibility.
Unfortunately, refiners are unable to take full advantage because of
constraints imposed by overlapping Federal RFG rules. S. 1576 would
allow individual refiners to further optimize their gasoline product
formulation for California as long as they meet the emission
performance targets. In the highly competitive gasoline marketing
business, this benefits not only the refiners, but ultimately gasoline
consumers.
2. Reducing use of oxygenates--The passage of S. 1576 will neither
mandate nor ban the use of oxygenates such as MTBE. By removing the
current oxygen mandate, S. 1576 will allow California refiners to
optimize the use of oxygenates, potentially reducing those currently in
use such as MTBE, and increasing others such as ethanol that are of
less public concern. Chevron and other companies would welcome the
flexibility to manufacture California CBG based on performance
standards--not a mandated formula. Given this greater flexibility, some
refiners may very well choose other oxygenates, oxygenate in lesser
amounts, or no oxygenate at all. The passage of S. 1576 is a critical
first step in that direction.
The refining industry in California has made a very significant
financial commitment to produce California CBG. We take very seriously
our role in helping improve air quality in the State, and have invested
billions of dollars in California alone to make California CBG. The
benefits of the California CBG program are very significant--it is the
equivalent of taking 3.5 million cars off the road, solely by reducing
air emissions from the California fleet. Passage of S. 1576 will allow
refiners more flexibility to address the environmental concerns that
have arisen since the introduction of California RFG while maintaining
the air quality benefits to the public that have occurred by reducing
emissions from vehicles.
V. Efforts to Work With Interests in California on Regulatory Chances
In addition to supporting S. 1576, we are also working closely with
the State of California on a package of regulatory changes, which will
hopefully provide some additional flexibility in the eight parameters
regulated in gasoline while maintaining emissions performance. State
regulatory changes are equally important to provide the formulation
flexibility needed to reduce or eliminate the use of oxygenates in
gasoline--without compromising the air emission reductions performance
of California cleaner burning gasoline. Note, however that even with
the passage of S. 1576 and the added regulatory flexibility, oxygenates
will still be needed to address the wintertime CO non-attainment
problem in Los Angeles, Fresno, and Lake Tahoe areas. Oxygenates are
effective in reducing CO, particularly in the older automobile fleet.
VI. Chevron's Use of MTBE in California Cleaner Burning Gasoline
Last December Chevron appealed to Congress and California
regulators to allow cleaner burning gasoline to be made without
requiring oxygenates such as MTBE. We had concluded it may be possible
to make a cleaner burning gasoline without oxygenates, and still reduce
emissions to the same extent achieved with current standards. We urged
industry to work cooperatively with Congress and California regulators
to explore options for reducing or eliminating MTBE altogether.
We have been actively working to help achieve this goal as
described in the above testimony. We have produced significant
quantities of gasoline in California without MTBE, while still meeting
California's stringent performance standard for gasoline. During the
past two summers our Richmond refinery in California has manufactured
about half of its gasoline without any oxygenate--this represents about
10 percent of the total gasoline supplied by the oil industry to
northern California. The California Air Resources Board recently
eliminated the winter oxygen requirement for much of the same area so,
once the State and Federal approval processes are complete, our
Richmond refinery will be able to make non-oxygenate gasoline year
around. However, full production of non-oxygenated gasoline is not
possible now at Richmond due to the Federal oxygenate requirement in
Sacramento, and lack of high octane components that can satisfy
California's Cleaner Burning formulation constraints.
Supplying the entire California gasoline market without MTBE will
require further refinery modifications, and additional changes to both
Federal and State requirements as discussed in our testimony. We
believe it is possible to replace gasoline which currently contains
MTBE with a combination of ethanol-blended gasoline and non-oxygenated
gasolines, while maintaining the clean air benefits that the California
Cleaner Burning Gasoline program has provided. We urge Congress to
enact S. 1576 into law. We also pledge to continue to constructively
work with the California Air Resources Board as they look how to modify
their regulations to allow refiners to use less MTBE to meet
California's strict performance standards.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify before your
committee today in support of S. 1576. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the committee might have.
__________
Statement of Douglas A. Durante, Executive Director, Clean Fuels
Development Coalition
Introduction
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name
is Douglas Durante and I am testifying on behalf of the Clean Fuels
Development Coalition (CFDC) where I have served as executive director
for the past 10 years. CFDC actively participated in the legislative
and regulatory aspects of the mobile source provisions of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, including serving on the EPA advisory committee
that negotiated the final rules for the successful Reformulated
Gasoline Program (RFG) provisions. It is important to note that after
thorough debate, the RFG amendments passed the Senate floor with
overwhelming bipartisan support by a resounding fine! vote of 69-30.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 went on to pass the House 401-21,
and the Senate 89-10. Many of you on this committee were instrumental
in that effort.
Background on CFDC's Legislative And Regulatory Involvement
CFDC is a non-profit organization with a diverse membership of more
than two dozen member companies representing a variety of industry
interests that include fuel oxygenate producers, American automobile
manufacturers, an independent U.S. refiner, and others involved in the
energy, agricultural and clean fuel businesses. Because of these
diverse interests, CFDC has been involved in supporting clean fuel
legislation and the development of national energy strategy which has
fostered the development of clean fuel technologies.
CFDC supports the continued implementation of existing Federal and
California cleaner burning fuel programs, which have the demonstrated
ability to reduce air pollution. Many of CFDC's member companies
produce and market the very products that are used to make gasoline
burn cleaner. These include fuel oxygenates which are not only used to
make California's gasoline burn cleaner but are also used in many other
parts of the country that have air quality problems associated with the
combustion of gasoline.
I should clarify that this testimony is being presented on behalf
of CFDC and with the exception of our automobile manufacturers who
have, at this time, taken a position of neutrality, all of our members
strongly oppose S. 1576.
Position Summary
We were asked to direct our testimony to the merits of a prescribed
formula that includes a 2.0 percent (wt) oxygen level such as in
Federal reformulated gasoline as compared to a performance standard. We
believe those merits are considerable and oppose legislative efforts to
change the Federal formula. We were also asked to comment on S. 1576
and the progress of the RFG program. Simply put, RFG has been a fuel
quality specification that has reduced emissions of carbon monoxide;
more harmful toxic compounds, like benzene; and those emissions that
contribute to the formation of ground level ozone pollution, or urban
smog. This fuel quality specification, to the credit of industry and
government, has been administered safely, efficiently, cost-
effectively, required no changes in consumer fueling and driving
habits, and has had no adverse effects on vehicle performance.
Reformulated gasoline, with oxygenates, has:
<bullet> Exceeded expectations for emissions and air quality
benefits.
<bullet> Cost less than projected at under 3 cents per gallon
nationwide.
<bullet> Consistently outperformed other formulations and
substitutes.
<bullet> Reduced emissions in all vehicles using it, even more so
in older cars.
<bullet> Reduced the consumption and import of crude oil.
<bullet> Provided States with an easily implemented option for
reducing mobile source pollution.
<bullet> Gained widespread support throughout the U.S. based on
its 3 years of success.
Some have promoted legislative change in order to address concerns
of MTBE in water. We do not believe this objective can be attained
simply by allowing California refiners to use the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) formula. Other proponents of change are refiners
who desire ``flexibility'' to meet emission reductions. The effect of
providing such flexibility will be to strike down the prescribed
Federal formulation which has been extremely effective in improving air
quality and would necessitate amending the Clean Air Act.
As for the first objective relating to MTBE in water, we believe
the focus of any corrective measures should be on the leaking gasoline
tanks. Allowing a substitute formula that will still use MTBE as would
be likely, is hardly the solution. Yet we believe it is worth finding a
solution so that oxygenates remain in gasoline due to the many benefits
they provide. The leaking gas tanks pose a threat to public health from
exposure to a variety of chemical compounds currently in gasoline and
must be dealt with.
The second objective of ``flexibility'' is unwarranted. In addition
to its success in reducing ozone, Federal RFG is available and
inexpensive and safe for its intended use. It does not impose any
unique burden for California refiners. With the use of the complex
model beginning this year, refiners indeed have numerous combinations
they can utilize to meet the Federal standard which were not available
several years ago when this legislation was first introduced. Most
importantly, removing the oxygen requirement could result in a loss of
air quality benefits. Amending the Clean Air Act would set a dangerous
precedent for a nationwide undermining of what has been a successful
program.
Legislative And Regulatory Background of Reformulated Gasoline
The authors of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 recognized the
increasing impact that emissions from the combustion of fuels played in
polluting our nation's cities. They also recognized the value of
reformulating gasoline to burn cleaner. The provisions, which passed
the House and Senate with significant bipartisan support, included a
primary specification for clean burning oxygen content in gasoline. In
particular, two oxygen specifications were included in the Act: 2.7
percent (wt) for the control of carbon monoxide pollution during the
winter months, the other at 2.0 percent (wt) to reduce harmful toxics
year-round, and smog forming emissions in the summer high ozone season.
The year-round program is commonly known as the Federal reformulated
gasoline, or RFG program. It is important to note that although the Act
specified the level of oxygen for these programs, it provided industry
with flexibility to choose which fuel oxygenate to use. It allowed
refiners to meet the standards through averaging, and provided for
compliance flexibility by establishing performance standards.
With the passage of the Act as the foundation, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) embarked on an extensive
regulatory negotiation process that reconciled the interests of the
refining, petrochemical, and automotive industries and the
environmental community. This regulatory negotiation process resulted
in the final guidance for the wintertime oxygenated fuel program and
the final regulatory requirements for the Federal RFG program. Although
both programs have set clean burning gasoline specifications to reduce
emissions, today's reformulated gasolines contain many of the same
ingredients as those found in conventional gasoline, only at more
optimal levels.
Cleaner Burning Reformulated Gasoline Program Success
We should all acknowledge that there is a lot we do not know about
ozone formation. What we do know, however, is that RFG is working all
over the country. Southern California enjoyed a 40 percent reduction in
ozone exceedences the summer after RFG was introduced and last year
experienced the cleanest summer on record. Phoenix opted into the
program in 1997 and had the first exceedence-free ozone season in 10
years. The presence of oxygenates in Federal RFG sold in California has
yielded air quality and health benefits well in excess of the
regulatory requirements. RFG may be providing some benefits we do not
yet fully understand, and without such an understanding, it is
impossible to guarantee the equivalency of a different recipe. For
example, some of the models used to predict reductions not only fail to
recognize offroad sources, which I will touch on in a moment, but may
grossly underestimate the positive impact these fuels have on high
emitters in the vehicle fleet. Failure to provide equivalency will only
hurt the driving public and the small businesses which will have to
make up the difference in achieving reductions in ozone and PM. When
considering the success of the program, why make changes? The effects
of allowing areas to use less than the RFG formula may not be cleaner
fuels, cleaner air, or improved public health. Rather it will increase
petroleum industry market share and provide more profits for some
refiners.
We have done a great deal of work with the States over the past
several years as they struggle with fuel choices as part of their
overall clean air strategies. Since RFG is achieving and even exceeding
required reductions wherever it is being used, States know exactly what
they are getting. It has been our experience that since RFG is a
specified, non-negotiable formula it is exactly what they are looking
for. The EPA approves it, the amount of reductions and credits are
understood, and the Federal Government helps States regulate and
enforce the program. All of those benefits are lost when a State-
prescribed performance fuel is adopted.
The specter of a patchwork, mismatched quilt of fuel programs
presents the potential for an environmental nightmare. Almost any oil
company would concede that such pockets of designer fuels are likely to
be much more expensive and many are on record saying just that. The
uniformity of RFG and the fact it can be exchanged in the marketplace
are key factors in keeping the price down. Without that uniformity,
overall fuel quality suffers and you could wind up with fuels that meet
the letter of the law for some pollutants but send others through the
roof. The driving force in fuel specifications would be getting State
Implementation Plan (SIP) credits rather than improving overall public
health. The binding parameters of the RFG Program make the ground rules
clear to everyone and air quality objectives are more likely to be met.
This eliminates the chance of States tinkering with a localized program
every year and allowing inferior fuels to be in the marketplace.
Widespread support for RFG
The overall success of the RFG program has resulted in a broad base
of support. Due to the mature market for RFG already in place, it is
often possible to see RFG prices under conventional gasoline. Currently
one-third of all U.S. gasoline, serving 80 million Americans, is RFG
with oxygenates. The Department of Energy and the EPA have expressed
strong support for the program and States continue to opt-in to the
program, such as when Missouri recently elected to use RFG. In December
1997, 12 States and the District of Columbia voluntarily elected to
remain in the RFG program, including committing to the more stringent
Phase II RFG requirements which will take effect in the year 2000. The
benefits are not going unnoticed by other States. Just last week the 22
member Governors' Ethanol Coalition wrote Missouri Governor Carnahan
congratulating him for that decision. In that letter the Governors
said, ``the Coalition is a strong supporter of this program that offers
significant benefits to public health through improved air quality. In
the 3-years since the inception of the Federal reformulated gasoline
program, it has been successful in reducing excessive ozone levels at a
cost of less than three cents per gallon over conventional gasoline.''
Fuel Oxygenates Enhance Energy Security and Reduce Crude Oil Imports
In addition to potential negative impacts on air quality gains,
there is another very important issue that should be considered--energy
security and the diversity of supply. During the CAA deliberations
there was considerable interest by Congress in marrying this program
with our energy security programs and goals. By requiring oxygenates as
a clean source of octane in lieu of aromatics, Congress was jump-
starting the market for ethanol, ETBE, and MTBE. Ethanol production in
the U.S. increased 75 percent since the 1990 Clear Air Act. In addition
to the direct displacement of gasoline, oxygenates further reduce
imports by extending the volume of oil through increased gasoline
yields. Refiners can get 1-2 percent more gasoline out of a barrel of
oil by avoiding high end refining needed to reach high octane and add
high octane oxygenates instead. This reduced processing requirement
results in less stationary source emissions as well.
The transportation sector in this country is over 95 percent
reliant on petroleum based fuels. Over 50 percent of this petroleum is
now coming from foreign sources. The U.S. Department of Energy projects
the nation will continue this trend and reach 70 percent reliance on
crude oil imports by 2010. Today, more than ever, the nation's reliance
on imported oil jeopardizes our security and economy.
Improved energy security was a factor in establishing the Federal
formula and was reaffirmed in 1992 when the United States Congress
recognized this threat and enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EPACT). EPACT requires the Secretary of Energy to determine the
technical and economic feasibility of replacing 10 percent of projected
motor fuel consumption with non-petroleum alternative fuels by the year
2000 and 30 percent by 2010. Oxygenates, which are contained in nearly
half of our nation's gasoline, could continue to make a major
contribution towards reaching these energy security goals. Without the
Federal and California reformulated gasoline programs, a significant
means of achieving this goal will be lost. The displacement of
petroleum-based products achieved through the use of these clean air
additives should not be overlooked. Most of our other national goals
for alternative fuel use have not been meet, due in part to the massive
task of retooling automobiles and establishing a new fuels
infrastructure. Utilizing oxygenates in gasoline requires no such
changes. The most definitive study to date on the impact of RFG on
reducing imports was done last year by the General Accounting Office
which found that more than 300,000 barrels of foreign oil were being
displaced annually. As final note in this regard, as far back as 1992,
the U.S. Alternative Fuels Council concluded that ``reformulated
gasoline, as the carrier of alternative fuels, is the least costly,
most efficient way to substantially introduce these alternative fuels
in the United States.''
To the extent that ethanol is used in RFG, particularly in ETBE,the
potential environmental and energy security benefits may be even
greater. I should also point out that the development of ethanol
facilities in California, which currently look very promising, would be
adversely affected by a removal of the oxygen specification. Along
those same lines both the ethanol and MTBE industries have considerable
capital investment in establishing sufficient supplies and
infrastructure to meet the demand resulting from the Federal formula.
Much of that would be at risk if oxygen were an ``optional'' component
of RFG.
Concerns With the CARB Formula
The first problem is the focus on the mass of emissions without
regard to the level of toxicity or reactivity. Not all VOCs are alike
in terms of toxicity or reactivity. Removing the oxygen standard could
result in an increase of more carcinogenic compounds at the expense of
less toxic ones and produce fuel that is more, rather than less,
reactive -both because of an increase in the use of aromatics. A
similar problem is almost certain to be true of fine particulates, or
soot, which have just recently been the subject of new Federal air
quality standards. We do not yet know precisely how motor fuels
contribute to PM<INF>2.5</INF>, which makes relaxation of RFG all the
more problematic.
The second problem is the potential degradation of air quality from
beyond just mobile sources. Off-road vehicles, small engines used in
portable power equipment, and other non-regulated motors also use RFG
and benefit from the oxygen content in the gasoline through reduced
carbon monoxide emissions. These off-road sources are also estimated to
be responsible for 10 or more percent of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) in the emissions inventory nationwide according to DOT and EPA
statistics. Both of these increases will ultimately tilt the playing
field against the car manufacturers (and other stationary sources),
which will have to make up the differences in terms of actually
reducing ozone itself (rather than ``mass'' emissions) and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> as well.
Conclusion
Throughout the development and implementation of these important
Federal and State clean fuel programs, the petroleum refining industry
has received a substantial amount of flexibility. Federal and State
agencies have consulted the affected stakeholders and provided
allowances to enable industry to deliver a complying product with the
least amount of cost and disruption. In addition, after promulgation of
the RFG program regulations, EPA responded to industry requests for
additional flexibility by applying liberal interpretation to sections
of the regulations pertaining to both modeling and in-use compliance.
With the need and interest for additional air quality control
measures on the rise, successful fuel quality strategies are the most
immediate and cost-effective way to obtain valuable air quality
benefits. The introduction of inferior seasonal substitutes such as
simply lowering the volatility of gasoline has proven to be ineffective
in the goal of reducing ground level ozone. Ultimately this could
affect the ability of some areas to achieve air quality benefits and be
a significant economic impediment to the economies of these areas.
For all areas of the U.S., RFG with oxygenates remains a common
sense, cost-effective means for both fuel and air quality improvement.
I respectfully urge this committee to reflect on these comments in
consideration of any legislation to alter this program. Such changes
could result in a decrease in fuel supplies, reduced competition, lower
fuel quality and driveability problems, and higher prices for the
consumer.
S. 1576 will not improve air quality, casts a dangerous precedent
for other States in that it actually could degrade air quality and wipe
out the tremendous strides that have been made to date.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on this
important issue. I would also like to request that, in addition to this
testimony, CFDC be allowed to provide information for the record in
support of our comments.
__________
Statement of Robert W. Gee, Assistant Secretary Office of Policy and
International Affairs Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to submit for
the record this statement discussing the Federal reformulated gasoline
(RFG) program and S. 1576, which would amend the Clean Air Act as it
relates to the Federal RFG program in California.
DOE has been actively involved in supporting the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), since the passage of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, in the development and implementation of the RFG
program and in the analysis of its cost and benefits. Most recently,
the Department of Energy:
<bullet> Conducted a reassessment of the cost-effectiveness of the
Phase II nitrogen oxides (NOx) reduction requirements for RFG. This
assessment was used by EPA as part of its basis for denying a petition
to change the standards.
<bullet> Provided detailed comments to EPA recommending changes to
the rules to limit State opt-outs from the Federal RFG program enabling
refiners to avoid being put at risk by States withdrawing. at will.
from the program.
<bullet> Provided analysis in support of EPA rules regarding
foreign refiner gasoline quality baselines when those rules were
challenged in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Subsequently, DOE
provided additional analysis and comments to help guide the changes, in
those rules, that were required to comply with the WTO ruling.
<bullet> Worked with EPA and the refining industry to make
appropriate changes in the per gallon NOx reduction requirements that
helped reduce the cost of RFG without compromising environmental
quality.
<bullet> Last, DOE conducted a preliminary analysis of the
investment requirements and cost for reducing sulfur levels in all
gasoline.
These recent activities are a continuation of DOE involvement with
the RFG program that traces back to the Clean Air Act Amendments of
199O, to the regulatory negotiation that laid the basis for the Federal
RFG program? and to working with EPA and industry to help ensure a
smooth program introduction on January 1, 1995. DOE has worked to help
assure that the RFG program achieves its environmental goals while
placing minimum burdens on consumers and avoiding, for reasons
concerning energy security, any effect of reducing domestic refining
capacity.
When Congress passed the RFG program requirements, it intended to
provide multiple benefits. For example. oxygenates are required
throughout the year. not just in the high-ozone season. as part of the
plan to gain a wide range of benefits through gasoline reformulation.
The DOE believes these benefits, relating to both the environmental
quality and supply of gasoline are important and suggests that all
parties proceed very carefully in making any changes to the Clean Air
Act that would affect this aspect of the program. S. 1576 would modify
the Federal RFG requirements by allowing California State requirements
to be the only requirements applicable to gasoline in that State. The
most important of these changes, from our perspective, is the bill's
effective elimination of the requirement for oxygenates in RFG and the
likely consequences that such a change would have.
In this context, I would first like to discuss issues related to
how oxygenates affect the quality of gasoline. To the extent that this
legislation would allow a reduction in the use of oxygenates, the
benefits that oxygenates provide in the formulation of clean gasolines
could be lost. Oxygenates provide primarily two fuel quality benefits:
1) Oxygenates in reformulated gasoline contribute to a high quality
gasoline that runs well and provides the octane levels consumers want
while helping to reduce ozone forming emissions. DOE's analyses of
Federal Phase 11 RFG performance requirements and other clean gasolines
show that oxygenate use in general, and ethers like MTBE in particular,
are economically attractive in formulating clean gasolines. even in the
absence of an oxygenate requirement, because of their contribution to
octane levels. distillation properties and dilution of undesirable
components like sulfur and olefins. For example, a recently completed
DOE analysis indicates that under the current economics of gasoline
blending, if no oxygenates were required, two-thirds or more of the
MTBE volume now used by east coast refiners in Phase II RFG would still
be utilized. If oxygenate prices were cut for some reason by as little
as a nickel per gallon, east coast refiners would not alter the volume
of oxygenate use at all, because of the desirable properties of
oxygenates relative to other possible blendstocks. Oxygenates would be
the cost-effective source for the desired blendstock properties.
2) Oxygenates also help reduce air toxic emissions from
reformulated gasoline. Gasoline is a mixture of different hydrocarbons
with varying properties including toxicity. To achieve reductions in
gasoline's overall toxicity, refiners must reduce aromatic hydrocarbons
(especially benzene). By itself, aromatics reductions would rob the
gasoline of octane and volume. however'' oxygenates can restore octane
and volume without refining more crude oil or making expensive refinery
investments in new processing equipment. A detailed examination of 1996
RFG and conventional gasoline quality data, as reported to EPA under
the RFG reporting requirements, has shown benzene and toxic emission
reductions in RFG that substantially exceed the program requirements.
In fact, most of the RFG produced in 1996 exceeded the Phase 11 (year
2000) requirements for toxic reductions. Some of this additional toxic
reduction is directly attributable to the Clean Air Act requirement to
use octane enhancing oxygenates, making it economically attractive for
refiners to reduce aromatic and benzene levels.
I would now like to turn to several issues related to oxygenates
use and gasoline supplies. The United States has moved into a period
where consumers' demand for gasoline is coming close to overtaking the
U. S. refining system's capability to produce it, particularly during
summer months. We should be very careful that actions taken in the area
of reformulated gasoline do not have unintended consequences of
reducing the future available supply of gasoline. I would like to make
three specific points:
1) From an energy security perspective, oxygenates provide a way to
extend gasoline supplies. The transportation sector is almost totally
dependent on oil. One of the few near-term options for reducing oil
dependency is to expand our use of oxygenates. While it is true that
some oxygenates are imported. a greater fraction of the oxygenates used
in RFG is domestically produced than is the case for the oil used to
produce the rest of the gasoline mixture. In addition. the Department
is developing renewable oxygenate production technology that would not
rely on any imported sources of energy. Nevertheless, even in the
current market, oxygenate use in reformulated gasoline, which is
primarily MTBE, saves over 200,000 barrels per day of oil use in the
United States.
The potential for future savings is much greater. Expanding the use
of renewable energy sources is an important goal of our Comprehensive
National Energy Strategy, which will be achieved in part through
greater use of oxygenates derived from domestic renewable sources.
Ethanol. now produced mainly from corn. has an important role in
meeting the oxygenate requirements of the RFG. Over time we expect that
ethanol used in clean gasolines will increase, and the expanded
production of ethanol will be based on a technology that uses non-food
cellulosic feedstocks. The Department is developing improved feedstock
and conversion technology to provide an economically competitive source
of renewable transportation fuels that produce low air emissions,
require no foreign sources of energy, and have extremely low emissions
of greenhouse gases. We believe that Congress wanted to encourage the
renewable ethanol industry when the Clean Air Act Amendments were
passed and we think that preserving this opportunity for renewables is
important.
2) A key supply related issue that needs to be considered when
contemplating changing the very important part of total Californians'
demand for automotive fuel, currently about 900.000 barrels per day.
Outside of California, MTBE plays a less significant but nonetheless
important role. About 150,000 barrels a day are used, most of it in
Federal reformulated gasoline. For east coast refiners who make about
60 percent of their gasoline reformulated with MTBE, this oxygenate
also is important component of total gasoline volume, equal to the
total gasoline output of a couple large refineries.
Our data, shown in Figure 2, suggest that the California refineries
could not significantly reduce oxygenate use during the peak gasoline
season without adding additional refinery capacity. Figure 2 shows the
refinery operation situation in California in the summer of 1997 when
the whole country experienced strong gasoline demand and price
increases, and through June 1998. The top gasoline producing refineries
in the State were operating at, if not above, sustainable capacity
during the summer of 1997 and at similar levels again in 1998. That
high level of capacity utilization was with the high level of MTBE use
that I just pointed out. Without the option of running more crude oil,
the only options to reduce MTBE use, and still meet gasoline demand
during the peak season. would be to import other gasoline blendstocks
or finished gasoline or reduce the production of other products.
Because of California's very stringent gasoline and diesel standards,
strong demand for all transportation fuels, and long and expensive
transportation links to other supply regions (like the U.S. Gulf
Coast)? these options do not appear to be economically attractive. For
all of these reasons, any reduction in California oxygenate use as a
result of this bill is likely to be limited.
In closing, I would like to point out that we recognize that the
States have legitimate interests in this important public policy issue
There is a danger. however, that S. 1576 could have a detrimental
effect on the overall Federal RFG program and State gasoline quality
regulations. While the immediate impact of this bill might be limited
to gasoline regulation in California. it is clear that the States look
to the Congress. which passed the Clean Air Act. for national
leadership in this area. If an exemption were permitted for California,
other States may also ask for legislation to modify Federal RFG
requirements in their areas. In our opinion, this would result a
significant impact on the environment, gasoline consumers, and the
motor fuels industry--which has, in good faith, made investments to
meet important environmental regulations that were originally called
for by the Congress.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
Statement of Margo T. Oge, Director of Office of Mobile Sources, Office
of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, for the
invitation to provide a statement for the record for today's hearing. I
am pleased to have this opportunity to share with the Committee the
environmental benefits of the reformulated gasoline or RFG program, and
to address issues raised by S. 1576, introduced by Senator Feinstein
(D-CA).
S. 1576 would potentially exempt California gasoline in the Federal
RFG areas from the Federal RFG requirements, including the 2.0 percent
oxygen Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement. The bill states that California
fuel requirements would apply in lieu of the Federal requirements under
section 211(k) of the CAA ``if [State] rules will achieve equivalent or
greater emission reductions than would result from the application of
the requirements'' under the Federal RFG program with regard to the
aggregate mass of emissions of tonics and ozone-forming compounds.
An understanding of the history of the Federal RFG program is
important in order to put our views on S. 1576 in perspective. As you
know, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 included a number of
requirements to lower the emissions from motor vehicles, including
several fuels programs. The Clean Air Act achieved a delicate balance
of vehicle and fuel emissions control programs only after extensive
deliberations. The RFG requirements also emerged from the melding of
several Congressional goals, including air quality improvements,
enhanced energy security by extending the gasoline supply through the
use of oxygenates, and encouraging the use of renewable energy sources.
In 1991, EPA established a broad-based advisory committee to reach
a consensus on the many issues involved in developing proposed rules
for the reformulated gasoline program. This committee successfully
reached a historic ``Agreement in Principle'' or ``Reg-Neg'' agreement
on August 16, 1991. Representatives of Federal and State governments,
various affected industries, and environmental groups signed on to key
aspects of the programs. This agreement has resulted in a cost-
effective, highly successful program. One needs to be very cautious
about initiating changes to the RFG program that could upset the
balance of previous agreements that have led to the significant
emissions reductions we are seeing today. Before any changes are made
to the Clean Air Act, it is critical to assess the implications and
consequences for the RFG and other air quality control programs.
The Federal reformulated gasoline program introduced cleaner
gasoline in January 1995 primarily to help reduce ozone levels.
Unhealthful ozone levels are still of significant concern in this
country, with over 60 areas still in nonattainment of the current ozone
standard, and more expected to exceed the newly established, 8-hour
ozone standard RFG is a cost-effective way to reduce ozone precursors
such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
when compared to other air quality measures Phase II RFG, beginning in
the year 2000, will reduce VOCs at an estimated average cost of $450 to
$600 per ton and NOx at $3,500 to $4,000 per ton in 1997 dollars. The
Federal RFG program is required in ten metropolitan areas which have
the most serious ozone pollution levels. Three of these metropolitan
areas are in California. Although not required to participate, areas in
the Northeast, in Kentucky, Texas and Arizona that exceed the air
quality standards for ozone elected to join, or ``opt-in'' to the RFG
program as a cost-effective measure to help combat their pollution
problems. At this time, approximately 30 percent of this country's
gasoline consumption is reformulated gasoline.
The RFG program reduces ground level ozone and toxic pollutants
from vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions. The RFG program
requires that gasoline contain 2.0 percent minimum oxygen content by
weight. The first phase of the REG program, from 1995 through 1999, is
reducing emissions of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds and
tonics by 15 percent ' and beginning in 1998, NOx by 1.5 percent. This
is equivalent to taking more than 7 million vehicles off the road. In
the year 2000, the second phase of the RFG program will achieve even
greater benefits: a 27 percent reduction in VOCs, 22 percent reduction
in tonics, and 7 percent reduction in oxides of nitrogen emissions that
also contribute to the formation of urban smog.
We are often asked what ``real world'' evidence we have that the
program is working We have analyzed data on the gasoline actually
produced by refiners since the program began in 1995, and found that
the RFG, on average, exceeded the requirements. Most notably, tonics
reductions were about twice that required, with about a 30 percent
reduction versus a 15 percent requirement.
Ambient monitoring data from the first year of the RFG program also
shows strong signs that RFG is working. Benzene levels in gasoline,
which are controlled by RFG and are considered to be a strong indicator
of motor vehicle emissions impact on air quality, showed the most
dramatic declines with a median reduction of 38 percent. RFG areas also
showed significant decreases in other vehicle-related VOC
concentrations. EPA will continue to analyze ambient VOC and tonics
data further and evaluate evidence of the environmental impacts of RFG.
In light of the VOC, NOx, and air toxics reductions provided by
RFG, the Governor of Missouri has recently requested to opt-in St.
Louis to the Federal RFG program by June 1, 1999. The Governor has also
indicated that he plans to request that RFG be supplied to Kansas City
in the year 2000.
S. 1576 raises the question of equivalency between California and
Federal RFG and that raises complex scientific and /legal issues. In
order to make a determination on the equivalency of the fuels, EPA
would need to assess input from a wide variety of interested parties
through a notice and comment rulemaking process.
As I mentioned before, there are three Federal RFG areas in
California. Under the Clean Air Act, California has unique authority to
establish State requirements that control fuel and fuel additives for
the purpose of motor vehicle emission control. The CAA allows
California to specify an oxygenate or the level of oxygen content
(e.g., no oxygen) where Federal RFG is not required. In the Federal RFG
areas (Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego), however, the gasoline
must still contain a minimum of 2.0 percent oxygen. (Note that this
does not preclude refiners supplying these areas with RFG that meets
the stricter CA standards). The Agency provided California an exemption
from a number of Federal Phase I RFG enforcement requirements. The
enforcement exemptions have gone a long way to ensure that California
refiners meeting California RFG requirements are not faced with
overlapping and/or duplicate enforcement requirements. This was based
on a comparison of California's RFG program with the Federal Phase 1
program.
Oxygenates help to reduce emissions of ozone precursors, air
tonics, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter by diluting or
displacing gasoline components such as olefins, aromatics, and sulfur
and by altering distillation properties such as T50 and T90. Oxygenates
also increase octane without the need to invest in refinery capital
improvements, and can extend the gasoline supply through displacement
of some gasoline components.
For many refiners, if oxygenates were not used to produce RFG,
levels of aromatics or olefins may have to be increased to provide
octane. Both aromatics and olefins contribute to NOx and toxics
formation, so refiners would have greater difficulty in meeting the RFG
performance standards. Some level of oxygenate has historically been
used by many refiners for octane purposes. Because the use of
oxygenates by a refiner is often influenced by the volume of RFG
produced, the amount of premium gasoline produced, refinery capability
to produce other high octane blendstocks, and the price of purchased
oxygenates, it would be important to ask individual refiners how they
would meet RFG standards without the use of oxygenates.
It should be noted that California refiners producing California
RFG for markets outside of Federal RFG areas (e.g., San Francisco) are
still using high levels of oxygenates (around 1.5 percent by weight or
8.25 percent by volume MTBE) to meet summer California RFG standards
(i.e., standards that do not include an oxygen requirement). We have no
reason to believe that the use of oxygenates would decline
substantially if the requirement were eliminated. This was recently
confirmed by a Department of Energy (DOE) analysis. As noted in DOE's
statement, ``if no oxygenates were required, two thirds or more of the
MTBE volume now used by east coast refiners in Phase II RFG would still
be utilized.'' Again, one needs to be cautious about changing the
program's requirements where the benefit of doing so is not clear.
EPA, like many others, is concerned about drinking water
contamination in California by the oxygenate, methyl tertiary-butyl
ether (MTBE), which is used in California RFG. MTBE has been detected
in ground and surface water in various areas throughout the country
which, in some incidents, are a source of drinking water. For the most
part, detections in ground water and surface water have been quite low
(below 20 parts per billion, the lower end of EPA's December 1997 MTBE
drinking water advisory for taste and odor). For instance, the
California Department of Health Services requires public drinking water
systems to monitor their sources of water (e.g., wells, surface water
bodies) for MTBE. As of August 1998, 0.5 percent of the groundwater and
2.8 percent of the surface water sources sampled have detected MTBE
above 5 ppb, the State's proposed secondary standard for taste and
odor; MTBE detections at high concentrations in groundwater, such as
those experienced in Santa Monica, result primarily from leaking
underground fuel storage tanks, and possibly from distribution
facilities.
These leaks are unacceptable regardless of whether or not MTBE is
present in the gasoline. The Agency's underground storage tank (UST)
program is expected to substantially reduce future leaks of all fuels
and its additives, including MTBE from underground fuel storage tanks.
All USTs installed after December 1988 must meet EPA regulations for
preventing leaks and spills. All USTs that were installed prior to
December 1988 must be upgraded, closed, or replaced to meet these
requirements by December 1998. In addition to regulations for
preventing leaks, the EPA regulations have required leak detection
methods to be in place for all USTs since 1993. For the upcoming 1998
deadline, EPA recently issued its enforcement strategy which reinforced
that after December 1998, it will be illegal to operate UST systems
that are not equipped to protect against corrosion, spills and
overfills. If EPA finds them in violation, the owners/operators will be
subject to monetary penalties ($ 11,000 per day) for each violation
throughout their period of non-compliance. Thus, EPA, State agencies
and the fuels industry need to continue to work together to take
appropriate measures to prevent fuel leaks from underground tanks and
appropriately remediate those leaks that have already S. 1576 would not
deal with concerns about fuel leaks from underground storage tanks,
since oxygenates will continue to be used by refiners to meet emission
standards and for octane purposes.
In conclusion, EPA strongly supports the reformulated gasoline
program, given the substantial benefits of this program in reducing
ozone precursors and toxics. We believe that oxygenates provide a
valuable tool to refiners in meeting the emissions reduction
requirements and replacing octane lost in the reformulation process
(e.g., sulfur, olefin and aromatic reductions). Given the complex and
far-reaching issues that S. 1576 raises that have not yet been
addressed, and the potential negative impacts of revisiting Clean Air
Act provisions, EPA cannot support the bill at this time.,
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
__________
Statement of the American Bioenergy Association
taking biomass energy into the 21st century
I am Megan Smith, Director of the American Bioenergy Association. I
wish to submit comments for the record regarding Sen. Feinstein's bill,
S. 1576, regarding reformulated gasoline in California.
I wanted to let the committee know that there is an exciting new
industry about to emerge in California and across the U.S.: the
conversion of biomass, or cellulose, to ethanol. In fact, there will be
three biomass ethanol plants built in Northern California before 2000.
The projects are:
<bullet> city of Gridley--will use waste from rice in the form of
rice straw, alleviating open-field burning of straw which releases
carcinogens and particulates in the form of PM<INF>10</INF> into the
air. This plant will also use forest/sawmill residues and will be
coupled to an existing biomass power plant owned by Ogden Power.
<bullet> Sacramento Valley--a plant to be built by Arkenol, Inc.,
has already received permitting and will be converting rice straw as
well using a different conversion method than the City of Gridley
project.
<bullet> Plumas County--Collins Pine Company is planning to build
a plant to rid of forest residues which are responsible for fuel
loading and catastrophic fires in nearby forests; the plant will be
sited by Collins' sawmill in Chester, CA, and will use sawmill residues
as well.
There is also a plant being built in Jennings, Louisiana, that will
use sugar cane bagasse and rice hulls as its feedstock, and a plant in
New York State that will use the paper component of municipal solid
waste.
Background
Biomass conversion to ethanol differs from the current starch-based
ethanol industry in two ways:
<bullet> it is a much more cost-effective conversion process which
will not require the ethanol tax incentive eventually (5-7 years
approximately).
<bullet> it is a much more energy-efficient process, with
estimates of up to three-fold increase over conversion of corn starch.
The biomass ethanol industry and U.S. Department of Energy is
working with the existing corn-based ethanol industry to increase their
efficiency by converting their corn stover/fiber to ethanol as well. We
hope to help bring the cost of corn ethanol down through increasing its
efficiency.
Not only will these biomass ethanol plants clean-up the air through
reduction of air pollution from transportation fuels, but also by
backing out pollutants associated with forest fires and open-field
burning of agricultural crops such as rice straw. Eventually, we see
conversion of the cellulose component of municipal solid waste (i.e.,
non-recyclable waste paper and yard trimmings) possible in California
and across the U.S.
Sen. Feinstein's S. 1576:
This legislation gives the oil companies an excuse not to use
oxygenates such as ethanol in their gasoline formulation. Ethanol
blended at 10 percent with gasoline (E10) has many benefits; it is:
<bullet> biodegradable, unlike MTBE; during human consumption, it
breaks down in the liver and is essentially non-toxic in the quantities
MTBE has been found in California drinking water.
<bullet> beneficial to many aspects of air quality; while some
environmentalists are concerned with E10's increased RVP and associated
increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), this problem could
actually be alleviated by having the oil companies change their blend-
stock gasoline (to ``sub-RVP'' gasoline). Many feel that this is not as
expensive to do as the oil companies assert, and may prove to be much
cheaper than final litigation over MTBE claims.
<bullet> capable of backing out 10 percent or more of gasoline and
associated toxics such as benzene which are now leaking out of
underground storage tanks; again, ethanol is biodegradable.
Mr. Chairman, if the goal of S. 1576 is to alleviate MTBE leakage
into drinking water, then ABA feels that S. 1576 is not the correct
vehicle to address the problem. It is the leaking of MTBE that is the
problem, and not EPA's oxygenate program. We hope that the committee
will seriously consider finding another vehicle to take care of the
leakage of MTBE other than S. 1576. Otherwise, California, along with
the rest of the United States, may not see the fruition of the emerging
biomass ethanol industry that can alleviate many environmental problems
as well as helping to clean up our air with the clean gasoline
additive, ethanol.
I hope that this brief overview for the committee is helpful.
Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss any further.
We feel strongly that there is a future for biomass ethanol in the
State of California and throughout the U.S.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Megan S. Smith, Director,
American Bioenergy Association.
Governor's Ethanol Coalition,
Lincoln, NE, September 9, 1998.
Honorable Mel Carnahan,
Governor of Missouri,
State Capitol Room 216,
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.
Dear Governor Carnahan: Congratulations on your decision to
participate in the Federal reformulated gasoline program. As you know,
the Coalition is a strong supporter of this program that offers
significant benefits to public health through improved air quality.
In the 3-years since the inception of the Federal reformulated
gasoline program, it has been successful in reducing excessive ozone
levels at a cost of less than three cents per gallon over conventional
gasoline. According to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, nearly 1.3 million tons of ozone-forming emissions will be
prevented in the first phase of this program.
In addition to the clean air benefit of reformulated gasoline, this
program also helps us build a market for ethanol. Through establishing
an increased oxygen level during the winter months, ethanol will have
the ability to compete win other oxygenates. These requirements will
help us build the infrastructure necessary to ensure ethanol's
competitive ability.
Once again, I would like to congratulate you on your decision to
participate in the Federal reformulated gasoline program. It is my hope
that the program will spawn the development of new ethanol facilities
and help reduce dangerous ozone levels.
Sincerely,
Governor Frank O'Bannon, State of Indiana, Chair.
__________
Statement of the National Marine Manufacturers Association
Summary
The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) fully supports
S. 1576. Senator Dianne Feinstein's important legislation amends the
Clean Air Act to permit California's more stringent regulations for
cleaner-burning gasoline to apply in the State rather than existing
Federal regulations, as long as the California regulations continue to
achieve equivalent or greater reductions in emissions. The bill would
provide the much needed regulatory flexibility in the blending of
cleaner-burning gasoline, without setting specific mandates on
additives.
NMMA understands that Congress was well-intentioned when it passed
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that mandated that reformulated
gasoline in specified areas contain at least 2 percent oxygen by weight
in gasoline year-round. However, given concerns that have arisen
regarding the use of certain oxygenates, Congress needs to reconsider
this mandate, Congress should set the standards necessary to ensure
clean air for California's citizens, but allow California's regulators
to determine how best to meet these standards, while allowing for
flexibility for producers.
By approving this bill, the committee will take an important step
forward in restoring the public confidence in the safety of
California's gasoline supply. Furthermore, the marine industry, whose
end-users rely on the available fuel supply, are currently caught in
the cross fire despite the millions of dollars invested to implement
new, cleaner technologies.
That is not to imply that the Federal Government should ignore
environmental problems. Congress should continue to set the standards
necessary to ensure clean air for all citizens and to hold the States
to these standards. However, Congress should not mandate the course of
how to meet these standards. California's regulatory agencies are fully
capable of protecting the environment. California's RFG program is
California's responsibility and the State deserves regulatory
flexibility.
______
supplemental statement by the national marine manufacturers association
NMMA fully supports S. 1576. Senator Dianne Feinstein's important
legislation amends the Clean Air Act to permit California's more
stringent regulations for cleaner-burning gasoline to apply in the
State in lieu of existing Federal regulations, as long as the
California regulations continue to achieve equivalent or greater
reductions in emissions. The bill would provide California petroleum
refiners and marketers with the much needed regulatory flexibility in
the blending of cleaner-burning gasoline, without mandating specific
additives.
Historically, California has faced the most challenging air
pollution problems in the nation, and consequently is the only State
allowed by the Federal Clean Air Act to develop and operate its own
fuels program. NMMA understands that Congress was well-intentioned when
it passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments mandating that reformulated
gasoline in specified areas contain at least 2 percent oxygen by weight
in gasoline year-round. However, given current concerns that have
arisen regarding specific oxygenates, Congress needs to reconsider this
mandate. Congress should set the standards necessary to ensure clean
air for California's citizens, but allow California's regulators to
determine how best to meet these standards, while allowing flexibility
for producers.
Marine Engine Industry has Worked with the EPA and CARB to Develop
Cleaner Engines
While environmental issues will likely present the industry's most
significant challenges for years to come, member companies of the NMMA-
affiliated Association of Marine Engine Manufacturers (AMEM), are
seizing the chance to turn environmental demands into opportunity. When
the EPA determined that all averaged non-road sources equal 10 percent
of hydrocarbon emissions, NMMA members worked to develop new, cleaner
burning engines. At the time, EPA determined that all recreational
marine engines contribute only 3 percent of all the emissions in the
U.S.
Since the marine engine industry began working with the EPA in 1991
on creating a plan to reduce overall hydrocarbon emissions,
manufacturers have already funded major initiatives to develop new
generation engines which are both environmentally responsive and
consumer friendly. In 1996, the EPA established the first-ever emission
standards for spark-ignited gasoline recreational marine engines. These
standards became effective January of this year and will be phased in
over a 9-year period.
Research and development investment by engine manufacturers--
creating entirely new lines of products--will amount to an estimated
$500 million. These improved engine lines will consist of a mix of
four-stroke and various forms of direct injection two-stroke outboards.
Gasoline sterndrive and inboard engines have adapted and added
electronic fuel injection systems to achieve operational and efficiency
gains and resulting decreased emissions. Attached are answers to
frequently asked questions about the new technology engines and water
quality that were compiled by Californians United to Save Boating.
NMMA and technical and regulatory specialists from its member
companies are now assisting the State of California in the assembly of
technical and marketing information that will help provide baseline
data for the California Air Resources Board (CARB), working in
collaboration with State water authorities, to develop new and more
stringent emission standards for recreational marine engines. The
marine industry understands that California will demand compliance
performance from all recreational engines and on the fastest feasible
timetable America's marine engine manufacturers have great confidence
in the technical capability of the new engine designs being introduced,
and because it is in the best interest of engine and boat manufacturers
to have these new technologies penetrate the market as rapidly as
possible, the marine engine industry will continue to extend every
cooperation to CARB as it and other agencies develop new technical
emission standards and a timetable for implementation.
The Federal Oxygenate Requirement Has Unintended Consequences
In the past several months, public concern about MTBE has spurred
several California water districts to consider banning boating on some
public waters that serve as drinking water reservoirs. The leading
source of MTBE entering water supplies, however, is leaking underground
storage tanks. Marine engines do discharge negligible amounts of
gasoline into the water as part of the combustion process. With this in
mind, the marine engine industry has been developing cleaner, new
technology engines that have already started to arrive in the
marketplace. Over the past several months, the marine industry has
worked to educate California's water districts about the arrival of
these new technologies.
Unwarranted public concern about California's Reformulated Gasoline
(RFG) may lead to limits or bans on recreational boating, despite the
introduction of dramatically improved marine engine technologies
described earlier. In fact, legislation was introduced in the
California State Assembly that would have banned the retail sale and
use of all 2-cycle engines from all of California's lakes due to public
concern about MTBE. While the Assembly did not pass the bill, the
marine industry believes that the lack of regulatory flexibility in the
California RFG program could jeopardize the marine engine industry's
substantial and continuing investment in new technologies that would be
better for the environment.
Economic Impact of Boat Bans
Boating may seem like a weekend hobby, but the industry represents
a significant portion of California's economy. According to a report by
the California Department of Boating and Waterways, boating contributed
$1 I billion to the gross State product in 1995. Over 183,000 jobs were
attributable to recreational boating in California and the State and
local taxes collected as a result of recreational boating totaled $568
million in 1995.
The boating industry has special reason to be concerned about water
quality. When developing the marine engine rule, the EPA found in its
Regulatory Impact Analysis that boat dealerships, marina operators and
other small businesses are very sensitive to changes in the economy and
the ecosystem. Over 60 percent of all boaters fish, and declining
fisheries, which may be due in part to declining water quality, will
negatively impact consumer confidence and, therefore, will negatively
impact local businesses.
Consequences Beyond California
With over 880,000 registered boats, California has more
recreational boaters than any State except for Michigan. If boaters in
California continue to be threatened with bans, the demand for boats
will decline. This will have a great impact on communities in States
like Rhode Island, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and North
Carolina that have large boat building plants and related businesses.
Reduced outboard and personal watercraft sales will result in increased
prices, which will in turn, result in consumers having less money to
spend on marine accessory products. Employment will likely be affected
for those manufacturers who produce, distribute and sell accessory
marine products.
The boating industry is extremely affected by price points. To
illustrate how sensitive to the marine industry is to economic changes,
in the early 1990's, the imposition of the 10 percent ``luxury tax'' on
boats costing over $100,000 resulted in a loss of over 25,000 U.S.
jobs, thousands of boat dealerships and ancillary small supporting
businesses, and millions of dollars for both the marine industry and
the local economies that rely on the tax revenue that the marine
industry provides.
Conclusion
Congress was well meaning when it developed California's RFG
program with the 2-percent oxygenate mandate. Indeed, California has
experienced a dramatic improvement in its air quality as a result of
this Federal concern. However, sometimes technology development
outpaces the law, and it seems time for the Federal Government to
recognize that California's regulatory agencies are fully capable of
protecting the environment.
By approving this bill, the subcommittee will take an important
step forward in restoring the public confidence that has been shaken by
the potential effects of the mandated product. Furthermore, industries
like the marine industry, whose end-users rely on the available fuel
supply are caught in the cross fire, despite the millions of dollars
invested to implement new, cleaner technologies.
That is not to imply that the Federal Government should ignore
environmental problems. Congress should continue to set the standards
necessary to ensure clean air and water for all citizens and to hold
the States to these standards. However, Congress should not mandate the
course of how to meet these standards. This is California's
responsibility and should be their choice.
__________
Statement of Californians United to Save Boating
frequently asked questions--recreational boating and water quality
1. What is a ``new technology marine engine'. and how is it
different from existing marine engine technologies''
<bullet> The term ``new technology'' was coined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and refers to the new direct-
injection two-stroke technology, four-stroke technology, or other
technology used to reduce emissions.
<bullet> Direct-injection two-strokes, like OMC's FICHT outboards
and Mercury Slarine's OptiMax outboards, have greatly reduced
hydrocarbon emissions as well as greatly improved fuel efficiency and
operating characteristics.
<bullet> Four-stroke engines are another low-emission high-fuel
efficiency alternative.
2. How clean are direct-injection two-stroke and four-stroke
technologies and how does their fuel efficiency compare?
<bullet> Both two-stroke and four-stroke engines achieve greater
than 80 percent reductions in hydrocarbon emissions as compared with
conventional two-stroke engines.
<bullet> The fuel efficient of direct-injection he two-stroke and
four-stroke technologies on average is 30 percent better than
conventional marine engine technologies.
3. I've heard that four-stroke engines have lower hydrocarbon
emissions than direct-injection two-stroke engines. Is this true and if
so, why?
<bullet> Emission testing of similar powered engines (where both
direct injection two-stroke and four-stroke technology are used) has
shown that the direct-injection two-stroke engines have slightly higher
hydrocarbon emissions. However. manufacturers believe that because
direct-injection two-strokes are a brand of new technology, they are
expected to greatly improve as future development is encouraged.
<bullet> Four-stroke engine technology has been in production for
decades.
4. Do direct-injection two-stroke engines use oil and does it get
into the water? Do four-stroke engines?
<bullet> Direct-injection two-stroke engines are equipped with oil
injection systems that precisely meter just enough oil to ensure
reliable operation.
<bullet> Most of the oil is burned during the combustion process
and only a small amount of oil is present in the exhaust.
<bullet> Four-stroke engines have lubrication sumps that contain
oil and must be changed periodically like a car engine.
5. How much unburned fuel is actually getting into the water from
existing technology two-stroke outboards and personal watercraft
(PWC's)?
<bullet> California water district studies continue to show that
the amount is very small. Recent data from East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBB) and Metropolitan Water District (MWD) indicates that
benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene and xylene. (gasoline compounds of
concern) are nearly undetectable. Some of the gasoline additive MTBE
has shown up in areas of high boating, prompting some water districts
to consider varying management practices on their reservoirs. The
results continue to show that recreational boating does not constitute
a threat to California's drinking water supplies.
6. What engines are currently powered by the different
technologies? What does the future hold?
<bullet> Direct-injection two-stroke engines have been introduced
first in the high horsepower range and are expected to move down the
power range to below 20 horsepower.
<bullet> Four-stroke engines have been introduced in the low
horsepower range and currently are somewhat limited in their ability to
move up through the highest horsepower ranges due to their size and
weight.
7. Can a customer upgrade an existing technology two-stroke engine
to a new technology two-stroke engine?
<bullet> No. The new technology systems are extensive and designed
as complete systems. They cannot be treated as simple bolt-one.
8. Do the new technology engines exhaust any unburned fuel into the
water?
<bullet> New technology two-and four-stroke engines trap all
incoming fuel in the combustion chamber and expose it to the combustion
process.
<bullet> This ensures that the fuel is efficiently burned in the
combustion process.
<bullet> Due to the fact that no combustion system can be 100
percent efficient, very small amounts of hydrocarbons are exhausted
from the new technology two-stroke and four-stroke engines.
9. How many gallons of unburned fuel are exhausted per day during
the operation of an existing technology two-stroke engine?
<bullet> A 50 horsepower engine operated for 4 hours during a full
day of fishing will consume roughly eight gallons of gasoline. As a
result, several ounces of fuel will be initially transferred to the
water. This small amount immediately will begin to vaporize and
biodegrade. It will be difficult to detect any presence of gasoline
within a very short period.
10. How do personal watercraft emissions compare to outboard
emissions?
<bullet> There are two things we need to look at to answer this
question. First, we need to recognize that personal watercraft engines
are physically smaller than outboard engines of the same horsepower.
This requires the engine to operate at higher speeds resulting in
higher emissions. The second reason for higher emissions from personal
watercraft is that they generally are operated closer to full throttle,
resulting in a greater amount of exhaust emissions.
11. How can water reservoir managers distinguish between existing
and new technology engines?
<bullet> Four-stroke engines and direct-injection two-stroke
engines are both new technologies and generally are identified by their
motor cover decals.
<bullet> The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) also
is investigating ways to provide more obvious identification of the
existing and new technologies.
12. Why do we need both two-stroke and four-stroke technologies?
<bullet> A variety of boat designs use outboards. The performance
characteristics of these new technology engines are different and one
is better suited to a given application, addressing the consumers needs
for weight, portability, acceleration and quiet operation.
13. Is it accurate to say that using an existing technology two-
stroke engine is the same as pouring raw gas in the water?''
<bullet> Absolutely not. Although the exhaust of a conventional
two-stroke outboard or personal watercraft contains some unburned fuel,
it is at a temperature of several hundred degrees and is expelled in a
narrow trail of exhaust behind the boat as it travels through the
water. As this ``tail'' of exhaust leaves the hub of the propeller, it
quickly rises to the surface where it is released into the atmosphere.
Furthermore, at idle and off idle conditions, outboard motors are
designed to emit exhaust through their ``exhaust relief system'' above
the water. Under these operating conditions, they discharge little or
no exhaust into the water.
<bullet> Several studies, conducted for the U.S. EPA in the
1970's, attempted to quantify the amount of hydrocarbons deposited into
the water by conventional two-stroke outboard motors. Because of
experimental difficulties associated with these types of tests, the
results of these studies vary. They all indicate, however, that only a
fraction of the gasoline used by the engine (somewhat between one-to-
ten percent) is deposited in the water, and that small amount of
gasoline immediately begins to volatilize from the water into the air.
<bullet> The scientific data clearly indicates that although 10-25
percent of the fuel consumed by an outboard bypasses the combustion
process and exits the exhaust, only a fraction goes into the water.
Trying to characterize unburned gasoline discharges from the operation
of an outboard or personal watercraft as dumping liquid gasoline into
the water is not only unfair and misleading, but scientifically
incorrect.
14. Some people compare existing technology two-stroke marine
engine hydrocarbon emissions with the oil spilled from the Exxon
Valdez. Is this true?
<bullet> No. Unfortunately, this ``junk science'' promoted by a
few extreme environmentalists has misled the public. If the concept
behind this exaggeration were credible, then California water district
analysis would be showing high levels of benzene, ethyl benzene,
toluene and xylene (BETX) compounds and other components of gasoline.
<bullet> The fact is that the material discharged from the tragic
Exxon Valdez disaster was a concentrated spill of liquid non-volatile
heavy crude oil into a relatively small area of water. This spill was
incapable of significant volatilization, and was so concentrated that
it overwhelmed nature's ability to biodegrade it. This is totally
different than the relatively small amount of hot exhaust and gasoline
vapors that quickly pass through the water and are released into the
atmosphere behind conventional outboard motors.
__________
Statement of the Oxygenated Fuels Association
This is a statement for the record submitted by the Oxygenated
Fuels Association (OFA) to the Committee on Environment & Public Works
of the U.S. Senate with respect to the September 16, 1998 hearing
concerning reformulated gasoline (RFG), methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), and S. 1576. OFA appreciates this opportunity to present its
views on these issues of vital interest to the oxygenated fuels
industry.
OFA is a national and international trade association established
in 1983 to advance knowledge about the use of oxygenated fuel
components of gasoline. These additives not only improve the combustion
performance of motor vehicle fuels, thereby significantly reducing
automotive emissions and air pollution, but also replace or dilute many
of the toxic compounds historically associated with gasoline emissions.
The Attributes and Environmental Benefits of MTBE
OFA member companies produce and market significant quantities of
the oxygenated fuel components used in reformulated gasoline (RFG),
wintertime oxyfuels, and California's cleaner-burning gasoline (CBG).
MTBE, the oxygenate of choice, both in California and nationwide, is
the prime pollution fighting component in cleaner-burning CBG and RFG.
The refining industry has been using oxygenates in gasoline for
nearly 30 years. Oxygenates serve as both a high octane replacement for
toxic lead and aromatic compounds in premium gasoline, as well as a
non-petroleum energy alternative for expanding supplies of
transportation fuels. Oxygenates, such as MTBE, have been used as
octane enhancers in the U.S. since 1979. The environmental benefits of
oxygenates were first recognized in state-developed ``clean fuel''
programs as early as 1987, and then nationally acknowledged for their
clean burning benefits in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. As
such, oxygenates are not new or unfamiliar gasoline compounds in the
marketplace.
RFG is sold year-round in about 32 percent of the U.S. gasoline
market throughout 17 States with the worst air pollution problems. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that since its
introduction in January 1995, RFG has eliminated approximately 300
million tons of pollution from the nation's atmosphere. In California,
reductions in vehicle emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen
oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide due to cleaner-burning
gasoline are equivalent to the removal of 3.5 million vehicles from the
State's roads. In addition, California residents' exposure to highly
toxic benzene from vehicle emissions has been reduced by 40 to 50
percent by the use of CBG with oxygenates.
California's cleaner-burning gasoline is the world's cleanest
gasoline. The citizens of California now enjoy the best air quality in
decades because of cleaner-burning gasoline. In an October 1997 report
entitled Cleaner-Burning Gasoline: An Assessment of Its Impact on Ozone
Air Quality in California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
examined the improvements in ozone air quality in three major areas of
the State--the South Coast Air Basin, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area,
and the San Francisco Bay Area. After factoring in control strategies
for emissions from sources other than vehicles and for meteorology,
CARB found that cleaner-burning gasoline, with MTBE as its principal
pollution fighting additive, is directly responsible for an 11 percent
improvement in air quality in the South Coast Air Basin and a 12
percent improvement in the Sacramento Area. In addition, CARB credits
the State's clean gasoline program for reducing the public's exposure
to cancer risk by 40 percent.
MTBE was first commercially used in Europe in 1973. It has been
used in the United States since 1979 and in California since 1986. It
is widely used as an octane enhancer and cleaner-burning octane
alternative to lead and aromatics and is now the principal pollution-
fighting ingredient in CBG and RFG. Because of its effectiveness in
improving air quality, refinery operating requirements, state-of-the-
art blending practices, ease of supply and distribution and basic
marketplace economics, MTBE is the oxygenate of choice for most areas
requiring RFG, comprising approximately 80 percent of the nationwide
market for oxygenates. In California, MTBE is used in over 90 percent
of CBG.
MTBE has been extensively studied for its impact on vehicle
performance and air quality benefits. These studies have concluded that
MTBE is effective and safe for use in gasoline. MTBE not only helps
reduce toxic and ozone related emissions from reformulated gasolines,
but has contributed to lower emissions of many criteria pollutants such
as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, fine particulate,
and lead.
Health Effects and Benefits of MTBE
MTBE has also been studied extensively for its health effects. The
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in its Interagency
Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels Report, concluded that chronic, non-
cancer health effects would not likely occur from environmental or
occupational exposures to MTBE. In a review of the OSTP report the
National Academy of Sciences concluded that MTBE would ``not to pose a
substantial human health risk.'' Likewise, the Health Effects Institute
has determined that ``adding oxygenates is unlikely to substantially
increase the health risks associated with fuel used in motor vehicles;
hence, the potential health risks of oxygenates are not sufficient to
warrant an immediate reduction in oxygenate use at this time.''
The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals
has concluded that ``MTBE is not carcinogenic according to the criteria
set forth in the European Union's Directive on Dangerous Substances''
and that ``the risk characterization for MTBE does not indicate concern
for human health with regard to current occupational and consumer
exposures.''
The recent comparative health risk analysis conducted by the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) concluded
that Phase I Federal RFG (which contains MTBE) ``. . . served to reduce
the cancer risk associated with gasoline vapors and automobile exhaust
compared to conventional gasoline by 12 percent.'' Additionally, the
same study indicated that Phase II Federal RFG ``. . . is expected to
further reduce the public cancer risk . . . as compared to conventional
gasoline by 20 percent.''
The fact is, MTBE is one of the most studied compounds ever to be
introduced into modern commerce. No fewer than 80 health studies have
been completed to date, which collectively demonstrate that MTBE is not
harmful when used for its intended purposes as an anti-pollution
additive in gasoline.
The use of cleaner-burning gasoline that contains oxygenates like
MTBE under the Federal RFG and the California CBG programs has achieved
significant reductions in vehicle emissions that led to improved air
quality and public health protection. These programs have lead to at
least an 11 percent decrease in ozone exceedences in RFG areas, 15
percent decrease in summer VOC evaporative emissions, 7 percent
decrease in total VOC emissions, 3 percent reduction in NOx levels, 25
percent reduction in air tonics such as benzene (at least 50 percent in
California), 10 percent decrease in carbon monoxide (for wintertime
oxyfuels areas), and 11 percent reduction of sulfur dioxide and 9
percent decrease in precursors of secondary particulate matter from
vehicle emissions. These achievements have clearly met, or exceeded,
the objectives of Congress in enacting the RFG with oxygenates program.
The Presence of MTBE in Drinking Water
A great deal of concern has been expressed over recent discoveries
of MTBE and other gasoline components which have been detected in
drinking water sources--both groundwater aquifers and surface water
bodies. The members of OFA share this concern and believe that neither
MTBE, nor the many other chemical components of gasoline, should be
present in the groundwater or surface water.
To properly address the problem of MTBE in drinking water, it is
important to understand two fundamental things. First, when MTBE is
detected in a water supply, it is most likely the result of gasoline
releases. MTBE is not alone. The presence of MTBE is a signal that
other more toxic gasoline components, such as the known human
carcinogen benzene, have also been released into the water. Second, use
of MTBE in gasoline is not the cause of the problem of MTBE and other
gasoline components in water supplies.
Releases and leaks from underground storage tanks and pipelines are
the main causes of MTBE and other gasoline components entering
groundwater sources. Discharges of unburned fuel are the primary cause
of MTBE and other gasoline components in surface water bodies. To
ensure that MTBE and other gasoline components do not contaminate
drinking water supplies, we must ensure that these releases, leaks and
discharges do not occur and, should such events occur, clean-up and
restoration should be promptly and effectively carried out.
Proposals to phaseout or ban MTBE will not solve the problem of
water contaminated by gasoline. Reducing the level of or eliminating
MTBE will not reduce the number of releases or leaks from underground
storage tanks and pipelines, nor will it reduce the amount of unburned
fuel that is discharged by marine engines into surface water bodies.
Statements have been made suggesting that the ``corrosive'' nature
of MTBE is the main cause for the failure of underground storage tanks
and thus responsible for the leakage of gasoline into certain ground
water resources. A number of studies have concluded that these
statements are without merit. A study prepared by James M. Davidson of
Alpine Environmental, Inc. entitled MTBE Compatibility with Underground
Storage Tank Systems concluded that MTBE is compatible with underground
storage tanks and piping made from fiberglass; that the industry
standard seals used on tanks and pipelines were compatible with the
maximum MTBE concentrations allowed by law in gasoline (i.e. 15 volume
percent MTBE); and that there was no scientific basis to support claims
that MTBE was incompatible with glues used in fiberglass underground
storage tank systems or vapor recovery systems.
The response to the problem of MTBE and gasoline in water supplies
must be directed at the source of the problem--it must be directed at
replacing old leaking underground tanks, upgrading underground tank and
pipeline systems, improving leak monitoring and detection programs, and
responding rapidly to releases that do occur. The State of California
has taken a number of steps to fund efforts in this direction and OFA
strongly supports these steps.
The Feinstein Legislation--S. 1576
OFA is opposed to S. 1576. OFA members believe that the main
outcome of this legislation would be to allow the major oil companies
to circumvent the Federal clean fuel specification for using oxygenates
under the guise of more flexibility. Removing oxygenates will not
result in cleaner air and could potentially lead to dirtier air.
Repealing the oxygenate standard will also undermine many of the social
and economic benefits of the RFG and CBG program. Most of all,
enactment of this legislation will set a negative precedent by
undermining the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the economic benefit of a
single interest group.
One of the arguments made in support of S. 1576 is that the
overlapping requirements of the Federal RFG program and CARB's CBG
program limit the refiners' flexibility to make cleaner-burning fuels.
In addition, it is claimed that this inflexibility leads to higher
costs for the refiners and ultimately the public. EPA has addressed
many of the refining industry requests for additional flexibility over
the last 2 years by applying a liberal interpretation of sections of
the regulations pertaining to both modeling and in-use compliance. In
fact, EPA is preparing to codify many of these changes which provide
additional flexibility to all refiners in the overlapping areas.
OFA members also are opposed to S. 1576 because of the economic
impact it would have. The oxygenate industry has invested billions of
dollars in capital expenditures to meet the requirements of the CAA for
California. To arbitrarily change those requirements at this point,
before much of that investment is recaptured is simply unfair and
unwarranted, particularly when this legislation will benefit a few
large petroleum companies at the expense of all other market
participants. Smaller refiners may be disadvantaged by the passage of
S. 1576, since unfavorable economies of scale significantly raise the
cost of clean fuel alternatives to small refiners preventing them from
taking advantage of the other non-oxygenated alternatives that are
generally available to the large oil companies.
The major assumption underlying S. 1576 is equivalency--that CARB's
predictive model and CBG regulations will provide the same or greater
emission reductions and overall environmental benefits as a fuel, which
meets the RFG oxygen specifications of the CAA. One supporter of this
legislation, CARE, stated that ``The Federal oxygen rule prevents
(those refiners) from selling the Northern California gasoline with
reduced or no oxygenates in Southern California, even though the
Northern California gasoline provides twice the clean air benefits
required by the Federal Government.'' This statement leaves the
impression that Northern California gasoline is cleaner than Southern
California gasoline. This is not true. Southern California gasoline
with oxygenates is cleaner than Northern California gasoline and is
more than twice as clean as Federal RFG.
The real issue is the backsliding of air quality. It is imperative
that non-attainment areas in Southern California not lose the air
quality benefits they have achieved with oxygenated CBG. Yes, these
benefits are greater than the Federal standard but why would the State
go back to just meeting the standard when they now have in place
gasoline that is much cleaner than the standard.
CARB's own data demonstrates that Southern California gasoline--CBG
plus oxygenates--is significantly more effective in reducing emissions
than CBG alone. Blending oxygenates into gasoline displaces less
environmentally beneficial components such as aromatics which in turn
results in additional health benefits and a cleaner-burning gasoline.
Unfortunately, CARB's predictive model and CBG regulations are
unlikely to ensure such a result. The model and regulations are so
narrowly focused on tailpipe emissions of volatile organic compounds,
nitrogen oxides and toxics coming from highway vehicles that they
ignore the many other emission reduction benefits from the use of
oxygenates. Removing the oxygen requirement will allow refiners to
replace cleaner-burning oxygenates with less environmentally beneficial
components such as aromatics and still satisfy the CBG regulations and
the predictive model. However, the higher boiling temperatures and
higher carbon content of such fuel components are more difficult to
vaporize and bum under some engine conditions. In this case, replacing
oxygenates in CBG will lead to higher emissions of carbon monoxide and
fine particulate in the form of secondary aerosols. It will also
contribute to greater emission deterioration over a vehicle's useful
life by allowing increased deposit buildup in the combustion chamber of
the engine. In addition, replacing the oxygenates with the higher
carbon components will contribute to higher carbon dioxide emissions.
Another problem with CARB's predictive model is that it does not
apply to emissions from non-highway or non-automotive engines such as
farm equipment, lawn mowers, and leaf blowers. These non-automotive
engines represent over 10 percent of the volatile organic compound
emissions in the State of California. Due to the lack of sophisticated
controls and catalyst systems in these smaller, simple carbureted
engines, oxygen in the fuel used by these engines provides a
substantial combustion benefit that is not duplicated by any other fuel
properties in CBG. Therefore, emissions from these non-highway mobile
sources will only increase under the provisions of this legislation.
The way in which one defines ``equivalency'' is of paramount
importance in evaluating the merits of S. 1576. OFA believes that
equivalency should be defined as no ``back-sliding'' from air quality
conditions that currently are being achieved in the RFG areas of
California. The fact is, the use of CBG plus oxygenates is providing
emission reductions significantly in excess of the requirements of the
CAA, the CARB predictive model and the CBG regulations. We should not
sacrifice these enhanced emission reductions by defining equivalency
according to what meets the CARB predictive model and the CBG
regulations.
Finally, this committee must be sensitive to the effect this
enactment of S. 1576 will have on the fabric of the CAA and its
programs. Proponents argue that the bill is limited only to California
and therefore it will have no effect on the CAA or the national RFG
program. The fallacy of this argument was vividly demonstrated at the
committee's hearing when Commissioner Sullivan of Maine stated that
Maine also would like to take advantage of the flexibility provided by
S. 1576. It is interesting to note that Maine voluntarily subjected
itself to the oxygenate requirements of the RFG program when the
Governor choose to opt-in to RFG. Under the CAA, Maine already has the
flexibility to opt-out of the RFG program if they can meet the
requirements of their ozone plan without RFG. Commissioner Sullivan's
statement is most likely an indication of how other States will react
to enactment of S. 1576.
The Future of MTBE
The actions that the Committee on Environment and Public Works
might take with respect to the Clean Air Act, the RFG program, and MTBE
will be critical to the role that MTBE and other oxygenates play in our
nation's efforts to improve and maintain air quality in the future. In
determining its actions, this committee should be guided by the
following facts:
1. CBG plus oxygenates and RFG are responsible for massive
reductions in harmful air pollution from mobile sources in California
and the nation.
2. Maintaining and improving air quality will be nearly impossible
without CBG and RFG oxygenated with MTBE.
3. MTBE is necessary to meet the demand for CBG plus oxygenates and
RFG. In California alone, motorists use 35-37 million gallons of
gasoline per day, or about 13 billion gallons per year. The existing
refinery configurations and available supply of other oxygenates are
not adequate to replace MTBE and still meet this huge demand at a
reasonable cost. The changes needed to meet air quality standards with
MTBE would require additional massive investments to retool refineries,
build oxygenate capacity, and in some cases add transportation and
distribution facilities.
4. MTBE has been detected in a limited number of water supplies and
action must be taken to respond to this problem and to prevent it,
including full enforcement with current law and regulations.
5. When MTBE is detected in a water supply, it is not alone. The
presence of MTBE is clear indication that other, more toxic compounds
are also being released into the environment. The cause of such release
are leaking underground storage tanks and pipelines and marine engines
that are specifically designed to discharge unburned fuel. Ignoring
this fact and simply banning MTBE or repealing the oxygenate mandate of
the RFG program will not solve the water contamination problem.
The task for this committee, the EPA, the States, the oxygenated
fuels industry, and all other stakeholders is to find a solution that
addresses the legitimate problems associated with MTBE without losing
any of the substantial benefits derived from MTBE. The State of
California Legislature has taken steps in this direction by recently
enacting several pieces of legislation which provide for extensive
study and evaluation of MTBE and other oxygenates, direct the
establishment of drinking water standards, require identification and
monitoring of potential sources of water contamination, provide
additional funding for and expedite the remediation of gasoline spills
and leaks, and prohibit the delivery of any petroleum products to tanks
not in compliance with the new standards. At the same time, California
has refused to enact legislation, which would provide a ``quick fix''
by banning MTBE but would not solve the problems.
OFA trusts this committee will likewise render similar judgment.
OFA's members are absolutely convinced that sound science, facts, and
demonstrated results do and will continue to prove the efficacy of MTBE
as a safe, effective pollution fighter and are prepared to work with
this committee to solve any problems associated with the use of MTBE.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement.
Oxygenated Fuels Association, Inc.,
Arlington, VA, September 9, 1998.
Honorable Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Boxer: I read with great interest your recent press
release and corresponding letter to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator Carol Browner regarding the need to clean-up fuel
contaminated water in California. On behalf of the Oxygenated Fuels
Association (OFA) and its member companies, I applaud your initiative.
OFA shares your view that leaking storage tanks are the root of the
fuel contaminated ground water problem and would like the opportunity
to meet with you to discuss ways that we can work together to help
protect California's air and water quality.
The OFA is firm in its resolve to keep motor fuel out of water.
Gasoline, with its hundreds of compounds of which MTBE is but one,
simply does not belong there. By ensuring that leaking storage tanks
are quickly replaced, gasoline leaks can largely be eliminated. Under
current law, all leaking storage tanks must be replaced by late
December of this year. The OFA believes this action will go a long way
toward preventing fuel from entering groundwater supplies.
We respectively disagree with your call to phaseout MTBE, an
additive that is the single most effective tool in our efforts to
reduce air pollution. MTBE has been instrumental in improving the
health of Californians by providing significant air quality benefits
throughout the State. In fact, California's cleaner burning fuel
program is one of America's best environmental success stories, having
contributed to the State's best air quality in 50 years.
The OFA is committed to being in the vanguard of finding a solution
for the fuel-contamination problems, including full compliance with
tank replacement and upgrading requirements. OFA also supported recent
California legislation to establish a fund to help water agencies
respond to fuel contaminated water problems.
The OFA firmly believes that clean air and water are not mutually
exclusive. We are striving to ensure that Californians have both. Given
your concern about California's air quality, I hope that we can work
together to achieve this goal.
I look forward to discussing this issue with you in greater depth.
Sincerely,
Terry Wigglesworth, Executive Director.
______
A Message from the Oxygenated Fuels Association
MTBE, methyl tertiary butyl ether, is one of the fastest growing
chemicals in the United States. Around the world there are now scores
of plants manufacturing this gasoline component commonly referred to as
an ``oxygenate.' They have been used commercially in gasoline for over
25 years.
The recent growth of MTBE and other oxygenates is explained simply
by the fact that they provide great benefits in reducing air pollution
and toxic emissions associated with conventional gasoline. Today, over
100 million Americans are reaping the benefits of cleaner-burning
gasoline with oxygenates like MTBE. The first big surge of growth for
oxygenates came in the 1970's when harmful lead was required to be
removed from gasoline. Then, Federal and State laws, such as the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 and California's cleaner burning gasoline
program, mandated improvements through a new breed of ``reformulated''
and ``oxygenated'' gasoline to reduce harmful components.
Lately MTBE has been in the news. It has been a subject of much
discussion in some newspapers, on radio talk shows and television news
programs. Currently, there are legislative proposals regarding MTBE
being considered in California and MTBE has appeared on the agendas of
local water authorities and utility district boards.
The Oxygenated Fuels Association's role is to help provide answers
to those questions. Since the early 1980's, this international trade
association has led the way in sponsoring and disseminating scientific
students and gathering, developing and analyzing information on
oxygenates. We have included a variety of fact sheets, questions and
answers, press releases, and other information on MTBE in this packet.
We hope this information proves useful to you.
MTBE History and Background
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) is an oxygenate derived from
natural gas and is used in gasoline to reduce vehicle exhaust emissions
while maintaining high performance.
History
1940's: MTBE first designed as a fuel additive.
1970's: Manufactured and used commercially in Europe.
1979: Use in the U.S. as a replacement for lead to enhance octane.
1989: Introduced in Southern California in the first cleaner
burning gasoline.
1990: Clean Air Act Amendments require the use of oxygenates to
lower automotive air pollution in nine major metropolitan areas with
the worst air quality, including southern California.
1992: Cleaner burning gasoline, containing 11 percent MTBE by
volume or other oxygenates, used to satisfy Federal winter-month
requirements to reduce carbon monoxide (CO) pollution in San Diego, Los
Angeles Basin, Sacramento, and Bay Area.
1995: Federal reformulated gasoline program implemented, including
seven California areas: L.A. County, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San
Bernardino, Ventura, and San Diego.
1996: California's year-round cleaner burning gasoline program
began statewide.
<bullet> Californians use 35 to 37 million gallons of gasoline per
day, or about 13 billion gallons per year. MTBE is used in about 90
percent of gasoline sold in the State. Cleaner burning gasoline
contains 11 percent MTBE (by volume). Over 30 percent of gasoline sold
nationwide is cleaner burning reformulated gasoline.
<bullet> California Air Resource Board's 1996 Phase 2 reformulated
gasoline program is oxygenate ``neutral'' i.e. it does not mandate what
specific oxygenate should be used in cleaner burning gasoline. MTBE is
the product of choice because of economics, availability, performance
and quality.
<bullet> There is currently no feasible substitute for MTBE in
California gasoline. Ethanol, for example, is not available in
sufficient quantity to meet California's requirements. It also cannot
be transported by pipeline and instead has to be trucked, railed,
barged and/or transshipped into California at considerable additional
expense. It must be blended into the gasoline at the terminals, which
are not equipped to handle a large amount of ethanol blending. Because
of its volatilibility, ethanol cannot be used year around without
violating Federal and State pollution standards.
Health and Environmental Effects of Motor Vehicle Emissions
<bullet> Air pollution costs Americans $150 billion dollars each
year in lost productivity, increased medical bills, and premature
deaths. Motor vehicle emissions account for roughly half of the ozone,
75--90 percent of carbon monoxide, and about half of the airborne toxic
cancer risk, according to the American Lung Association. The EPA
estimates that nearly five million tons of ozone-forming emissions will
be prevented in the first phase of the reformulated gasoline program
(1995-1999).
Motor vehicle emissions from gasoline, without oxygenates, contain
higher concentrations of the following pollutants:
<bullet> Benzene: the toxic effects include bone marrow injury and
hematopoletic toxicity, including leuopenia, lymphocytopena, aplastic
anaemia and leukemia.
<bullet> Carbon monoxide: interferes with the body's ability to
absorb oxygen, which impairs perception and thinking, slows reflexes,
causes drowsiness and can cause unconsciousness and death; if inhaled
by pregnant women may threaten growth and mental development of the
fetus.
<bullet> Carbon dioxide: as the major component of greenhouse gas
emissions, may attribute to global warming.
<bullet> Nitrogen oxides: which contribute to ground level ozone
or ``smog'' can increase susceptibility to viral infections such as
influenza, bronchitis, and pneumonia.
<bullet> Sulfur dioxide: potent respiratory irritant; can impair
lung function by constricting airways and damaging lung tissue; can
aggravate asthma and emphysema.
<bullet> Volatile organic compounds: depending on the compound,
the effects include eye irritation, respiratory irritation and cancer.
The most abundant are hydrocarbons. Condensation of VOCs and sulfur
dioxide creates Articulates, including smoke, soot and dust. VOCs are
the precursors to the formation of ground level ozone.
<bullet> Ground level ozone (i.e., urban smog): an oxidizing agent
that attacks cells and breaks down body tissues, even at low
concentrations; irritates mucous membranes of the respiratory system;
causing coughing, choking, damaged lung tissue and impaired lung
function; reduces resistance to colds and pneumonia; can aggravate
chronic heart disease, asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.
<bullet> Toxic emissions: a broad category encompassing many
different compounds, including toxic hydrocarbons such as benzene,
toluene, and 1,3-butadiene, are suspected or known to cause cancer,
reproductive problems, birth defects and other health effects.
The Benefits of Cleaner Burning Gasoline with MTBE
Cleaner burning gasoline with MTBE has been extremely successful in
fighting smog both in California and across the nation. Nine urban
areas in California, using cleaner burning gasoline, are now meeting
the U.S. EPA's national carbon monoxide standard of nine parts per
million (ppm). Those include: Bakersfield, Chico, Fresno, Lake Tahoe N.
Shore, Lake Tahoe S. Shore, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and
Stockton.
<bullet> Smog, which is ground level ozone pollution, remains a
serious local and regional air quality concern. Right now, 127 million
Americans live in areas with poor air quality. California has some of
the most polluted cities in the Nation and 50 percent of this air
pollution comes from motor vehicles. A proven way to reduce ozone
pollution is by using cleaner burning gasoline.
<bullet> In California, cleaner burning gasoline with MTBE is
responsible for reducing benzene levels by 50 percent, smog forming
emissions by 15 percent, and other air toxins by about 40 percent.
<bullet> Cleaner burning gasoline with MTBE reduces lung-damaging
ozone and ozone precursors by 3 million pounds per day, including
carbon monoxide by about 9.6 million pounds. This is equivalent to
removing 3.5 million cars from the road.
<bullet> California's first stage smog alerts in 1996, the first
year of the cleaner burning gasoline program, were down 50 percent
compared to 1995, and 70 percent compared to 1994. The greater Los
Angeles area enjoyed its best air quality year on record in 1996, with
seven stage-one smog alerts compared to 14 stage-one smog alerts in
1995 and 23 in 1994. In 1970, the region experienced 148 stage-one smog
alerts.
<bullet> According to the American Lung Association, air pollution
costs Americans $ 150 billion dollars each year in lost productivity,
increased medical bills, and premature deaths. Cleaner burning gasoline
with MTBE helps to increase pulmonary comfort and reduces medical costs
for thousands of Californians, both young and old, affected by
respiratory problems.
<bullet> Nationwide, carbon monoxide concentrations have decreased
by 37 percent over the last 25 years, despite large increases in the
number of vehicles on the road and the number of miles they travel. In
1995 alone, the U.S. EPA trends report noted that average carbon
monoxide concentrations had decreased by 10 percent. Carbon monoxide
(CO) concentrations are a good barometer of the success of the nation's
clean fuels program because CO pollution is primarily cause by the
transportation sector.
<bullet> Studies estimate that the drop in carbon monoxide
exposure following the introduction of MTBE can be expected to prevent
or delay between 1,440 and 12,600 heart attacks each year nationally
between 480 and 4,200 of which would have been fatal.
MTBE and Acute Health Effects
Over 80 scientific health studies on MTBE have been conducted to
date, making it one of the most thoroughly studied chemicals in modern
commerce. None of the studies have identified any health-related risks
to humans from the intended use in cleaner burning gasoline.
<bullet> The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,
the Health Effects Institute and the National Research Council
completed an extensive review of oxygenated fuel additives. The report
concluded that there was little evidence of acute MTBE related health
effects: ``Adding oxygenates is unlikely to substantially increase the
health risks associated with fuel used in motor vehicles . . .''
<bullet> When MTBE-oxygenated fuels were introduced in 1992 in
Alaska, acute health complaints were reported. Preliminary studies by
public health officials suggested an association between acute health
symptoms and exposure to oxygenated gasoline with MTBE. However, more
definitive and rigorous studies by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, U.S. EPA, Yale University, Rutgers University, John Hopkins
and others disproved that association.
<bullet> Due to its low odor threshold, MTBE in gasoline is
readily detected by some individuals and, thus, may be perceived as
being a symptom-causing agent because it is easily identified.
<bullet> In three controlled chamber studies, performed at the
EPA, Yale and the Swedish National Institute of Occupational Health,
the effects of 1 hour exposures to MTBE were compared to those of clean
air and in one case ozone-forming volatile organic compounds. All three
studies found no symptoms related to MTBE.
<bullet> MTBE poses a ``low order'' of acute toxicity in
experimental animals exposed via oral, dermal and inhalation routes.
There have been studies that have reported a sensitization to MTBE in
humans exposed by skin contact to the MTBE or to gasoline containing
MTBE.
<bullet> The Department of Human Service in the State of Maine
released a descriptive study of asthma hospitalization among residents
in counties using reformulated gasoline in July 1996. The study pointed
out that asthma hospitalization rates were higher in non-reformulated
gasoline areas than in the areas that use reformulated gasoline with
MTBE.
<bullet> The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
studied State-employed gas station workers: 115 workers in northern New
Jersey, where reformulated gasoline containing MTBE was used, were
compared to 122 workers in southern New Jersey, where reformulated
gasoline was not used. No differences were found in the frequency or
number of complaints.
MTBE and Chronic Effects
There is no scientific evidence that MTBE causes cancer or chronic
health effects in humans.
<bullet> The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), the Health Effects Institute and the National Research Council
state that chronic non-cancer health effects (necrologic,
developmental, or reproductive) would likely not occur during
environmental or occupational exposures to MTBE.
<bullet> Using the low risk numbers that both the biological and
statistical analyses indicate regarding cancer, it is clear that the
benefits of using MTBE far outweigh any risks of not using MTBE. In
fact, the California EPA has determined that cleaner burning gasoline,
containing MTBE, has reduced cancer risks from vehicle emissions by
about 40 percent, and lowered exposure to benzene in the air, a know
carcinogen, by about 50 percent.
<bullet> Cancer involves damage to genes or gene formation. MTBE
has been tested extensively in vitro and in viva for its gene toxicity
potential. The results of these tests demonstrate that MTBE does not
directly alter the genetic material of the cell.
<bullet> MTBE research shows that kidney tumors seen in rats
exposed to massive doses of MTBE are clearly related to the binding of
MTBE to a unique protein present in male rats. Humans don't make this
protein, and, therefore, would not be at risk of developing kidney
tumors from such exposures.
<bullet> Effects of MTBE vapor on reproduction and development
have been evaluated in well-conducted inhalation studies with rats,
mice, and rabbits. MTBE does not present a hazard to reproduction or
development because no adverse effects on the embryo/fetus are noted
except at levels that also cause considerable maternal toxicity.
MTBE in Groundwater and Surface Water
The failure to properly contain and distribute gasoline in
underground storage tanks, gasoline pipelines, or powered watercraft
gasoline tanks can cause MTBE and other gasoline constituents to reach
groundwater and surface water.
<bullet> Leaking underground storage tanks at gasoline stations
are the largest source of groundwater contamination by gasoline and its
constituents. California has a program to upgrade or replace all of its
leaky underground storage tanks by the end of 1998. The Oxygenated
Fuels Association emphatically supports California's underground
storage tank program.
<bullet> Gasoline leaks are also a source of other gasoline
components such as benzene, toluene, and xylene. The US EPA and State
environmental agencies have recognized gasoline leaks as a major source
of groundwater pollution. It has enacted regulations and monitoring
procedures to minimize their occurrence in the future.
<bullet> The presence of gasoline constituents in groundwater does
not necessarily mean that the substances are in the water you drink.
Groundwater refers to the water contained in underground aquifers.
These aquifers may or may not be a source of drinking water for your
area.
<bullet> Generally, MTBE travels more quickly in water than
aromatics and will, therefore, be found on the leading edge of a
spreading gasoline leak. If a high level of MTBE is detected in
groundwater, it shows that there is a gasoline tank leak in the area,
and groundwater contaminated with benzene and other aromatics is
probably not far behind.
<bullet> According to the US EPA, two-stroke engines found on 75
percent of all powered watercrafts in the US, discharge 25 to 30
percent of their unburned gasoline and all of its constituents directly
into the water.
<bullet> Accumulation of MTBE in surface water is highly unlikely.
Studies show that MTBE will volatilize to the atmosphere following the
cessation of boating and the release of MTBE to the water body.
<bullet> MTBE concentrations in standing water bodies will
generally diminish quickly under common lake and environmental
conditions. The rate of MTBE removal is faster than many other
oxygenates and is similar to certain other gasoline components, namely
benzene. Under most realistic lake and reservoir conditions, and
assuming that reformulated gasoline releases have ended, MTBE is not
likely to accumulate, and thus will not pose a significant threat to
water quality in surface waters.
<bullet> There are no natural processes that could concentrate
MTBE beyond its original level in groundwater and surface water. MTBE's
concentration will always decrease by biodegradation, dilution,
evaporation or natural processes.
MTBE and Drinking Water
The California Department of Health Services drinking water supply
survey shows out of the 2,638 water sources tested for the presence of
MTBE, only 1.3 percent of samples detected MTBE; however, only 0.2
percent of the samples contained MTBE concentrations greater than 35
parts per billion, which is the current State action level. Three of
the samples were from the City of Santa Monica and one was an abandoned
well.
<bullet> A State survey shows that only one major public water
system, the City of Santa Monica, has been directly and adversely
impacted by MTBE release to the groundwater. One of the well sites is
250 feet from a gas station where underground storage tanks have been
leaking for a number of years. The other site is near two gasoline
pipelines, nearly 50 potential gasoline leak sites, and two active
earthquake faults. The city has reached a settlement with the parties
responsible for the problem: leaking underground storage tanks.
Presently, the site is being remediated of all gasoline contamination.
<bullet> MTBE has a distinct taste and odor, the latter detectable
to most people at concentrations around 45 ppb. Because of its strong
taste and smell, the public is unlikely to ingest it at any levels that
may pose a health risk. US EPA has released a drinking water advisory
recommending that MTBE does not exceed a range of 20 to 40 parts per
billion based on most sensitive human odor or taste perceptions. The
EPA advisory determined that this range is about 20,000 to 100,000 or
more times lower than the exposure level at which health effects were
observed in animal testing.
<bullet> Standard water treatment technologies currently in common
use such as aeration, ozone oxidation, and carbon absorption, can
remove MTBE.
<bullet> While the presence of gasoline and its constituents
represents a continuing threat to water quality due to leaking
underground fuel tanks, spills, and leaks from pipelines, the impacts
on water quality are expected to be far less than has been suggested.
MTBE is less dense than water and will not sink vertically through an
aquifer.
Underground Storage Tanks and Site Remediation
In California, even though MTBE use has increased in recent years
(especially since June 1996 when cleaner burning gasoline was
implemented year-round across the State), there has been a steady
decline in the numbers of new underground storage tank releases
reported.
<bullet> The key to reducing gasoline chemicals, including MTBE in
drinking water sources is underground gasoline storage tank leak
prevention and early detection. California has an aggressive
underground storage tank replacement program. State and Federal
statutes require that all underground storage tanks installed before
1984 be removed, replaced or upgraded to meet current standards by
December 22, 1998. The Oxygenated Fuels Association emphatically
supports all State and Federal programs to replace deteriorating or
leaking underground storage tanks.
<bullet> Conditions under which ground water contamination occur,
due to leaking underground storage tanks, are site specific.
Conventional clean-up methods already used for gasoline contamination
can be effectively employed should MTBE be present.
<bullet> MTBE or MTBE fuel blends have little or no effect on
fiberglass laminates and can be safely stored in fiberglass reinforced
plastic underground storage tanks. Fiberglass reinforced plastic
underground storage tanks for petroleum products are warranted to not
leak for a period of 30 years when used with fuel blends with up to 20
percent MTBE.
<bullet> Several tests found MTBE-blended gasoline did not impact
steel tanks, steel piping or other metal components in gasoline
distribution systems. Of the common gasoline additives, MTBE was found
to be the least corrosive to steel and other metals.
<bullet> There are no scientific studies to support claims, by
some, that MTBE causes underground storage tanks to leak due to the
incompatibility with glues used in fiberglass underground storage tank
systems, or due to incompatibly with vapor recovery systems.
______
MTBE: Questions and Answers
supplied by the oxygenated fuels association
Q: What is MTBE and why is it used in gasoline?
A: MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is a high octane blending
component derived from natural gas to add oxygen to gasoline which
makes the fuel burn cleaner. Oxygen content is part of Federal and
California government requirements for less polluting cleaner burning
gasolines. Specifically, MTBE reduces vehicle exhaust emissions while
maintaining high performance.
Q: How long has MTBE been in gasoline?
A: It has been used in gasoline for over 25 years. It was first
used as a replacement for toxic lead compounds in gasoline. In the
1980's, MTBE was used to make premium gasolines. Because of its success
in cleaning the air in places like Colorado and other States, Congress
required the use of oxygenates like MTBE in the clean fuel program
established in the 1990 Clean Air Act. MTBE has been used in winter
gasoline in California for the past 6 years.
Q: How effective is MTBE blended gasoline in cleaning up the air?
A: MTBE has had a very significant impact in improving air quality.
Adding MTBE to gasoline makes the gasoline burn more cleanly, which
reduces tailpipe emissions such as carbon monoxide, toxins, and smog
forming pollutants. According to the California Air Resources Board,
cleaner burning gasoline reduces lung damaging ozone and ozone
precursors by 3 million pounds per day, including carbon monoxide by
about 2.6 million pounds. This is equivalent to removing 3.5 million
cars from the road. In fact, nine urban areas in California are now
meeting the U.S. EPA's carbon monoxide standards.
Q: What benefits does MTBE have over oxygenates?
A: Compared to the other oxygenates, MTBE is convenient for
refiners to use, more cost effective, and more widely available.
Q: Can California use cleaner burning gasoline without oxygenates,
such as MTBE?
A: While it has been done in a lab, it's not practical to make
cleaner burning gasoline without oxygenates. Without them, refiners
would have to invest billions of dollars in new infrastructure, making
gasoline much more expensive.
Q: Has MTBE been subject to scientific analysis?
A: MTBE is one of the most studied components of gasoline. Over 80
scientific health studies on MTBE have been conducted to date, none
which have identified any health related risks to humans from the
intended use in cleaner burning gasoline. In a comprehensive review of
MTBE health studies, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded:
``Based on the available analyses, it does not appear that MTBE
exposures resulting from the use of oxygenated fuels, are likely to
pose a substantial human health risk.''
Q: Is MTBE a carcinogen?
A: There is no evidence that MTBE causes cancer or chronic health
effects in humans. In fact, according to the California Air Resources
Board, there is a 40 percent decrease in the cancer risk from exposure
to benzene and other taxies from using cleaner burning gasoline
containing MTBE.
Q: What about these studies that show MTBE causes tumors in rats
and mice?
A: While very high doses of MTBE induced tumors in some laboratory
rats and mice, there has been no identified link to cancer in humans.
The US EPA and health experts are confident that MTBE poses no adverse
health effects from the intended use in cleaner burning gasoline.
Q: Is MTBE getting into groundwater?
A: There have been incidents of MTBE and other gasoline components
getting into groundwater. Generally, this occurs when there are leaks
from underground storage tanks. The standard practice in the industry
is to fix the leak and clean up the contaminated soil and groundwater.
California has an aggressive underground storage tanks replacement
program. State and Federal statues require that all underground storage
tanks installed before 1984 be removed, replaced, or upgraded to meet
current standards by December 22, 1998.
Q: Is there drinking water contamination from MTBE?
A: According to the most recent data supplied by the State
Department of Health Services, only 1.3 percent of the 2,638 water
sources tested had detected MTBE; however, only 0.2 percent of the
samples contained MTBE concentrations greater than 35 parts per
billion, which is the current State action level. Three of the samples
were from the City of Santa Monica and one was an abandoned well.
Q: What is a safe drinking water level for MTBE?
A: No one should be drinking water that contains MTBE or any other
gasoline component. However, EPA is-last advisory recommends that MTBE
does not exceed a range of 20 to 40 parts per billion based on the most
sensitive human taste or odor perceptions. This is the equivalent to 2
or 3 tablespoons in 150,000 gallons of water (equal to about 6 in
ground swimming pools).
Q: Can MTBE cause underground storage tanks to leak?
A: There is no evidence to support that claim. Tank and service
station equipment manufacturers are very familiar with gasoline blends
containing MTBE. Fiberglass reinforced plastic underground storage
tanks for petroleum products are warranted to not leak for a period of
30 years when used with fuels blends with up-to 20 percent MTBE by
volume Which is double the amount used in cleaner burning gasoline). In
addition, several tests found MTBE-blended gasoline did not impact
steel tanks or other metal components in gasoline distribution systems.
Q: Can MTBE in water be remediated?
A: Yes. The same cleanup techniques used to remove gasoline
contamination from groundwater can be used with MTBE.
Q: What about reports of surface water containing MTBE?
A: MTBE and other gasoline constituents have been detected in
several lakes in California. The primary source of MTBE in these lakes
is released from marine engines used for recreational boating,
particularly two stroke engines. Scientific studies show that MTBE,
like other components in gasoline, will evaporate quickly from the
surface water once the source of MTBE has ceased.
______
[Oxygenated Fuels Association Press Release, February 23, 1998]
Oxygenated Fuels Association Applauds East Bay Mud for New Marine
Engine Purchase Plan; Urges Rapid Development of Environmentally Safer
Marine Engines Nationwide
Arlington, VA.--Charles T. Drevna, Director of Government and
Regulatory Affairs for the Oxygenated Fuels Association (OFA), today
applauded a decision by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
to spend $420,000 to replace two-stroke marine engines in the agency's
municipal watercraft with the less polluting four-stroke variety.
``This is a responsible and effective action taken by a major water
authority to protect the regional water quality by limiting the amount
of gasoline and oil which would otherwise be discharged into the
surface waters,'' Drevna said. ``We also applaud EBMUD for recognizing
that the problem of power craft pollution of surface waters is a
problem of engine design and inadequate fuel and oil containment, and
not a problem of individual components of gasoline, such as the anti-
pollutant gasoline additive, MTBE.''
Drevna contrasted EBMUD's action with a recent statement by the
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) which attempted to
place the blame for polluting two-stroke marine engines on MTBE.
Instead of falsely accusing MTBE, the ozone-scrubbing anti-pollution
ingredient in cleaner burning gasoline, Drevna urged manufacturers of
two-stroke marine engines to rapidly develop and bring to market marine
engine systems that are much mote environmentally friendly than many of
today's models which discharge 25 to 30 percent of their raw fuel and
oil directly into lakes, rivers and streams. Drevna noted, ``EBMUD's
decision to select the less polluting four-stroke engines for its
official watercraft sends an important signal to marine engine
manufacturers that polluting two-stroke engines are no longer
acceptable on California's water ways.''
Drevna added, ``It is environmentally unacceptable for
manufacturers to design, build and sell two-stroke marine engines,
which are often used to power popular personal water craft such as jet
skis, that discharge raw, unburned fuel and oil into surface waters as
part and parcel of their operational cycle. It is equally unacceptable
for the NMMA to try and confuse the issue by suggesting, as it did
recently, that taking MTBE out of gasoline will eliminate the problem
of inadequately designed, environmentally incompatible two-stroke
engines,'' he added.
``The issue here is not MTBE, or any of the other hundreds of
individual components in gasoline. The issue is the routine discharge
of what amounts to thousands of gallons of raw fuel every year into
America's recreational waters, fuel which includes such components as
benzene, a known human carcinogen, and other toxic chemicals such as
toluene, ethylbenzene and various xylene compounds, none of which
belong in water,'' Drevna explained.
Drevna noted that when MTBE is placed in gasoline to make it burn
more cleanly, it replaces some of these toxic compounds in every
gallon. ``Still, gasoline, whether it is oxygenated or not, belongs in
secure fuel tanks and properly operating engines,'' Drevna said.
Drevna explained that OFA's call for cleaner, more environmentally
compatible marine engines is by no means an attempt to prevent or
restrict the use of pleasure craft on U.S. lakes and other waterways.
``Recreational users of water craft bought these engines in good faith
and they should not be punished,'' he said.
Drevna noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
called for a 9-year, phased-in improvement of two-stroke marine
engines. He also noted that some manufacturers are also advocating an
accelerated timeframe in California to design and develop less
polluting engines a position OFA strongly supports.
Without the accelerated improvement of these engines, estimates are
that it will take to the year 2025 to replace approximately 75 percent
of the marine engines with the newer, less polluting engines. But
Drevna said the timetable was inadequate to protect America's surface
waters.
``Today's call by OFA is for marine engine manufacturers to begin
immediate phaseout of the current two-stroke engine technology, not
only in California, but throughout the nation, and to bring to market
more environmentally responsible engines as rapidly as possible,''
Drevna concluded.
______
[Oxygenated Fuels Association Press Release, March 12, 1998]
Sacramento Area Meets Federal CO Standard
clean fuels group hails air quality in 10 california cities
Arlington, VA.--Charles T. Drevna, Director of Government and
Regulatory Affairs for the Oxygenated Fuels Association (OFA), today
hailed Sacramento for meeting the Federal clean air health standard for
carbon monoxide (CO). Noting that most CO pollution comes from cars and
trucks, Drevna attributed most of the region's improved air quality to
the use of cleaner-burning reformulated gasoline with anti-smog
ingredients like MTBE (Methyl tertiary Butyl Ether) and improved
automotive emissions technology.
The Sacramento area is one of 10 urban regions throughout
California using the more environmentally friendly oxygenated fuels
which were notified by the U.S. EPA that they had come into compliance
with the national nine parts per million (ppm) CO standard.
``Thanks to California's specially formulated `green' fuel, the
citizens of Sacramento are able to enjoy cleaner, healthier air,''
Drevna said. He added, ``Sacramento's achievement is all the more
impressive because, like all of California, the citizens of Sacramento
are driving more cars, more miles than ever before.''
In 1996, according to the latest available statistics from the U.S.
Department of Transportation, drivers in the Sacramento area
collectively drove a total of some 26.6 million miles each and every
day during the year. ``Despite such impressive levels of vehicle use,
which has almost surely increased since 1996, the residents of
Sacramento have been able to meet this tough Federal anti-pollution
standard,'' Drevna noted. ``It's simply a case of having your car, and
being able to drive it too,'' Drevna said, adding, ``The icing on this
particular cake is the clean fuel which allows for geometric increases
in driving levels while providing for decreased levels of pollution.''
Drevna said CO is produced when fuel is burned inefficiently, and
can be a problem in colder weather when air is heavier and harder to
mix with fuel. ``By adding an oxygenate like MTBE to gasoline, the fuel
is able to combust more completely even in colder temperatures, thereby
reducing tailpipe pollutants like CO,'' Drevna said. He said that CO
pollution can be a special problem for young children, senior citizens,
pregnant women and individuals suffering from asthma and related
problems.
In addition to Sacramento, the other nine urban areas in California
now meeting the U.S. EPA's CO standard are: Bakersfield, Chico, Fresno,
Lake Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore, Modesto, San Diego, San
Francisco and Stockton.
______
[Oxygenated Fuels Association Press Release, April 15, 1998]
Oxgenates Industry Responds To Tosco's Ethanol Pilot Program
Arlington, VA.--``Tosco's announcement today that it will institute
a 6-month pilot program substituting ethanol for MTBE at 50 ``76''
branded gasoline stations in three California counties is flawed in one
major aspect--it needlessly and incorrectly denigrates MTBE, the
preferred anti-pollution ingredient used in over 80 percent of
California's cleaner burning gasoline.'' So said Charles T. Drevna,
Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs for the Oxygenated Fuels
Association (OFA) today in response to the Tosco announcement.
``Tosco, and every other oil refiner in California, has always had
the freedom of choice to choose what ever oxygenate they feel can best
meet the State's cleaner burning gasoline specifications,'' Drevna
explained. He added that refiners around the country routinely
determine which oxygenate best suits their individual refinery
configurations based upon prevailing market forces and logistics. Such
decisions are made without public fanfare, Drevna said, adding,
``Unfortunately, Tosco's announcement seems to be designed more as an
exercise in public relations rather than a serious attempt to test a
true substitute oxygenate that can work for the entire State.''
Drevna pointed out that there is not enough ethanol available to
replace MTBE in California's 900,000 barrel-a-day demand for cleaner
burning gasoline. ``To suggest that this pilot program, limited to 50
stations in Marin, Sonoma and Contra Costa counties, can eventually
translate into a State-wide program is not credible,'' Drevna said.
In addition, Drevna noted that the water contamination problem
mentioned by Tosco will not be solved by using ethanol as opposed to
MTBE. '`Neither MTBE, nor ethanol, nor any of the hundreds of other
components of gasoline, should be leaking into groundwater from old,
corroding underground tanks,'' Drevna said. He added. ``We need to
replace these tanks with modern systems that prevent leaks. That way,
we can continue to have the clean air that oxygenated fuels provide,
while ensuring that water quality is not degraded by gasoline leaks.''
______
[Oxygenated Fuels Association Press Release, April 15, 1998]
Oxgenates Industry Responds To Sierra Club Call For Water Quality
Investigation in California
Arlington, VA.--Charles T. Drevna, Director of Government and
Regulatory Affairs for the Oxygenated Fuels Association (OFA), today
strongly took issue with a Sierra Club press statement that appeared to
single out MTBE for the State's water pollution problems. In addition,
Drevna said that calling for an Auditor General's investigation of the
State's water regulatory agencies for alleged failure to protect the
State's drinking water supplies is unnecessary and counterproductive.
``While we applaud the Sierra Club and other environmental
interests for the concerns regarding California's water quality,
singling out MTBE as a primary pollutant is both irresponsible and
incorrect,'' Drevna said. He added that leaking underground gasoline
tanks are responsible for discharging raw gasoline into shallow
underground aquifers, and that MTBE is one of hundreds of chemical
constituents in gasoline, including the more dangerous benzene,
toluene, xylene and ethyl benzene, that sometimes end up in ground
water.
But, Drevna noted, ``MTBE groundwater contamination in California
is isolated and limited and, except in a couple of well-publicized
cases, far below any levels which would impact human health or the
environment.''
Drevna also took exception to comments that MTBE was ``. . . very
expensive and difficult to remove from water. The fact is MTBE can be
safely and effectively removed from groundwater with existing
technology. In fact, MTBE has been in use for many years, both as an
octane enhancer to replace lead and as a pollution fighting ingredient,
and conventional remediation technologies have proven to be
technologically and economically feasible.''
Drevna added, ``We believe that the regulatory agencies in
California with responsibilities for ensuring water quality have done,
and are continuing to do, a good job in protecting the State's drinking
water supplies.''
``We agree that more money is needed to help ensure compliance with
tough Federal and State rules which require better underground storage
tank integrity, site monitoring and product handling. We also agree
that smaller gasoline retailers are in danger of economic extinction if
they do not get help to replace their leaking tanks.''
``But, the bottom line is clear,'' Drevna continued, ``cleaner
burning gasoline with MTBE is cleaning up California's air. The State
now enjoys the best air quality it has seen in 50 years. With the
continued vigilance of the State's water agencies, and adequate
funding, we also believe that California's water quality is also
improving dramatically. Californians don't have to make a Hobson's
choice between clean air or clean water. They can have both; they
deserve to have both.''
______
[Oxygenated Fuels Association Press Release, March 12, 1998]
Study Finds MTBE Will Dissipate Relatively Quickly from California
Surface Waters Due to Common Lake and Environmental Conditions
Arlington, VA.--A California consulting firm has recently published
a technical report that shows that concentrations of MTBE in standing
water bodies will usually diminish quickly under common lake and
environmental conditions once the source of MTBE has ceased. The report
states, ``The rate of MTBE removal is faster than many other oxygenates
(e.g. ethanol and TEA) and is similar to certain other gasoline
components, namely benzene.''
``As a result of the latest research, we now better understand that
the disappearance of MTBE and other fuel constituents in surface waters
is due to volatilization and not lake mixing,'' said John Kneiss,
Director of Health and Product Stewardship for the Oxygenated Fuels
Association (OFA). ``Furthermore, MTBE is not likely to accumulate, and
thus will not pose a significant threat to water quality in
California's surface waters,'' Kneiss added.
MTBE and other gasoline constituents have been detected in several
lakes in California. The primary source of MTBE in these lakes is
releases from motorized recreational boating, particularly those
equipped with two-stroke engines.
The report prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., of Oakland,
California, presents a scientific model that predicts the rate of
disappearance of MTBE and other fuel components in most typical lake
and reservoir conditions once the source of MTBE has been terminated.
Charles T. Drevna, Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs
for OFA, noted, ``Many of today's two-stroke engines discharge 25 to 30
percent of their raw fuel and oil directly into lakes, rivers and
streams. MTBE, or any of the other hundreds of individual components in
gasoline, which include benzene, a known human carcinogen, and other
toxic chemicals, belong in the marine engine, not in drinking water
sources.''
According to the Malcolm Pirnie study, the concentrations of MTBE
in lakes and reservoirs in California will decrease rapidly following
cessation of recreational boating. This model can be an effective tool
in determining an appropriate recreational boating period. A
termination date could be established at a point in time to permit
sufficient volatilization of MTBE and other gasoline components, thus
helping to ensure satisfactory water quality at the intake of a surface
water treatment plant.
MTBE, methyl tertiary butyl ether, is used as a component of
cleaner burning gasoline. According to the California Air Resources
Board, cleaner burning gasoline with MTBE reduces lung-damaging ozone
and ozone precursors by 3 million pounds per day, including carbon
monoxide by 2.6 million pounds. This is equivalent to removing 3.5
million cars from the road.
Engineers in the Oakland office of Malcolm Pirnie, a national
environmental consulting firm, conducted the research which was
commissioned and supported by OFA. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. is a consulting
firm devoted principally to solving environmental problems. It provides
a comprehensive array of services to both industry and governmental
agencies relating to drinking water, air and water pollution control,
solid/hazardous waste management, and environmental management/
restoration.
______
[Oxygenated Fuels Association Press Release, March 12, 1998]
OFA Testifies Against Bilbray Bill in Congressional Testimony; Warns
State Exemption From Federal Clean Fuels Standards Will Degrade
California's Air Quality Gains
Arlington, VA.--The Oxygenated Fuels Association (OFA) told a
congressional panel today that a bill exempting many of California's
major metropolitan areas from having to comply with Federal cleaner
burning gasoline regulations would turn back the clock on California's
highly successful clean fuel's program and re-introduce dirtier
gasoline and dirtier air to the State.
Speaking on behalf of OFA, Marvin Schlanger, Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer of ARCO Chemical Company, told
members of the Health and Environmental Subcommittee of the House
Commerce Committee, ``we oppose this legislation.''
Schlanger explained, ``The main outcome of this bill would be to
allow the major oil companies to circumvent the Federal specification
for using oxygenates under the guise of more flexibility.''
Schlanger added, ``Though this bill argues for flexibility, it is
not for flexibility to make cleaner fuels. It only provides the
flexibility to make dirtier fuels and there are not enough safeguards
in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Cleaner Burning Gasoline
(CBG) regulations to prevent this from happening.''
The bill in question, H.R. 630, was introduced in the House by
Representative Brian Bilbray (D-CA) on February 6, 1998. It would amend
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to allow California to drop the
oxygen standard in cleaner burning fuel used in the State's Federal
nonattainment areas of Greater Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco,
Sacramento and surrounding vicinities.
Schlanger said the bill would undermine the 1990 Clean Air Act and
set a negative national precedent by encouraging additional States to
opt out of the Federal clean fuels program. Schlanger noted that if the
Bilbray bill passes, the only identifiable beneficiaries would be large
gasoline refiners who will undoubtedly attempt to duplicate their
California success by attacking the reformulated fuel programs in other
States.
Currently, 18 States plus the District of Columbia use cleaner
burning gasoline either State-wide or in major metropolitan regions
within the States. Approximately one-third of all gasoline used in the
U.S. is reformulated gasoline with oxygenates, and about 80 percent of
this clean gasoline pool uses MTBE as the oxygenate of choice.
Schlanger added that oxygenates, like MTBE, are an integral
component of cleaner burning gasoline. ``MTBE not only helps reduce
tonics and ozone related emissions from reformulated gasolines, but in
addition has contributed to lower emissions of many criteria pollutants
such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur oxides, fine
particulates, lead, and also carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas,''
Schlanger said. He noted that many of these environmental benefits
could not be duplicated without using oxygenates like MTBE.
Schlanger emphasized a series of major points to Members of the
Subcommittee during his testimony, as follows:
<bullet> Oxygenates are not new or unfamiliar compounds in
gasoline. Oxygenates have been widely used in the U.S. for nearly 30
years, and MTBE has been used in gasoline for 20 years.
<bullet> MTBE in particular has been extensively studied for its
impact on vehicle performance, health effects, and air quality
benefits. These studies conclude that MTBE is effective and safe when
used as intended in gasoline.
<bullet> None of the hundreds of constituent components in
gasoline, including MTBE, belong in ground or surface waters. If they
are detected, it is the result of leaking underground storage tanks or
pipelines.
<bullet> Neither MTBE nor any other oxygenate causes underground
storage tank leaks. Reducing the amount of oxygenates in California's
gasoline will not reduce the number of future tank leaks, or solve any
of the related liability issues. Use of more sophisticated leak
monitoring and detection methods is a better solution for controlling
liability and potential contamination of groundwater.
<bullet> Reducing the oxygenate content in California's gasoline
will result in increased pollution from older vehicles, as well as
increased emissions from non-automotive engines that power lawn mowers,
leaf blowers, farm equipments and related machines. Such non-automotive
engines contribute up to 10 percent of volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions nationwide.
Finally, in concluding his testimony, Schlanger told the
Subcommittee that the Bilbray bill provides no additional benefit to
cleaning the nation's air, and should not be allowed to take up anymore
of Congress' valuable time. ``We should not be amending the Clean Air
Act for the economic benefit of a few companies,'' Schlanger said.
He added, ``Cleaner burning gasoline with MTBE is cleaning up
California's air. The State now enjoys the best air quality it has seen
for 50 years. American's don't have to make a choice between clean air
or clean water. We can have both we deserve both.''
__________
American Lung Association--Natural Resources Defense
Council,
April 29, 1998.
Honorable Michael Bilirakis,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Environment,
House Commerce Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Blirakis: On behalf of the public health and
environmental organizations who have been most involved in the
implementation of the reformulated gasoline program, we are writing to
oppose passage of H.R. 630. We oppose this bill because any alleged
benefits gained by its enactment are far outweighed by the risk of
subjecting one of the most successful programs enacted in the Clean Air
Act Amendments to potential amendments that could greatly reduce or
eliminate its effectiveness. We do not see any significant detrimental
environmental effects from the current version of the bill because it
applies only in California which requires gasoline to be cleaner than
Federal RFG. However, we believe that if Congress considers H.R. 630 or
any other bill to amend the Clean Air Act, a number of environmentally
damaging amendments may be offered and adopted.
Preliminary data indicates that the use of reformulated gasoline is
significantly lowering ambient levels of ozone and toxic air pollution.
The California Air Resource Board estimates that its Cal Reform II was
the principal program responsible for an 18-percent reduction of ozone
in Los Angeles and a 10 percent reduction in San Francisco during 1997.
Ambient levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, are 55 percent lower in
Los Angeles. While not as dramatic, cities using Federal RFG arc
reporting lower ambient ozone and toxics levels. These benefits should
grow as Phase II Federal RFG (similar to Cal Defoe II) is used in these
cities beaming in the year 2000.
There is no present need for Congressional action to modify the RFG
program. Congress will have an opportunity to review the HAG program
along with all the other air pollution reduction programs when it next
reauthorizes the Clean Air Act. Indeed, reauthorization may begin next
year. Until then, we urge that Congress let the implementation of this
program proceed without disruption in order to reduce air pollution and
protect public health and the environment.
We are concerned that reformulated gasoline constituents, including
but not limited to MTBE, have been detected in water. Especially in
shallow groundwater aquifers, there is evidence that MTBE and other
gasoline constituents are leaching through soil and contaminating water
supplies. The best evidence we have seen does not suggest that MTBE
poses a unique or greater health risk distinct from that posed by other
gasoline constituents. Nevertheless, gasoline is a dangerous substance.
It is clear is that a more aggressive effort to reduce or eliminate the
leakage of all gasoline and its constituents is needed, not only in
California but nationwide.
Much needed research on this and other potential health risks posed
by human exposure to MTBE is befog pursued intensively in California
and elsewhere Congress would greatly benefit from waiting for the
results of this research before undertaking amendments to the
reformulated gasoline provisions of the Clean Air Act.
We ask that this letter be included the record accompanying the
hearing held on H.R. 630 on April 22.
Sincerely,
Fran Dills, Deputy Managing Director,
American Lung Association.
Janet S. Hathaway, Senior Attorney,
Natural Resources Defense Council.
______
member companies of the oxygenated fuels association
Arco Chemical Company
Belvieu Environmental Fuels, Inc.
CDTECH (Catalytic Distillation Technologies)
Coastal Refining & Marketing
ECOFUEL, S.P.A.
Enron Clean Fuels Company
Huntsman Corporation
Methanex Incorporated
Neste Oy
Qatar Fuel Additives Company Limited
Sabic Americas, Incorporated
Texaco Refining & Marketing
Texas Petrochemicals Corporation
United Catalysts, Incorporated
Valero Marketing and Supply Company
______
[Oxygenated Fuels Association Press Release, July 22, 1998]
Clean Fuels Group Conducts Comprehensive Odor Testing For MTBE in
Drinking Water
Arlington, VA.--The Oxygenated Fuels Association (OFA) today
released the results of the most comprehensive ``chemical aesthetics''
test to date on the ozone fighting gasoline component, Methyl-tertiary
Butyl Ether (MTBE) to help ensure California's drinking water quality
and potability. MTBE is a major ingredient in California's cleaner
burning gasoline, which has dramatically improved air quality
throughout the State.
The study probed the individual abilities of a wide range of
consumers to detect MTBE in drinking water, using one of the most
sensitive of human senses, the sense of smell. The intention of this
study was to collect reproducible, reliable and useful data using an
accepted protocol which was subjected to scrutiny by an independent
Expert Advisory Panel. Continents on the protocol were solicited from
California's Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA).
``With data collected from the largest number of subjects ever used
for this kind of MTBE testing, the results showed that the average
perception of test participants to deflect MTBE in drinking water was
at concentrations of I 5 parts per billion (ppb),'' said John Kneiss,
Director of Health Sciences and Product Stewardship for OFA. Kneiss
said that, based on the test results, OPA supports setting a secondary
(aesthetic) State standard for MTBE in drinking water at no lower than
the 15 ppb level.
``Such a secondary standard fully equates with the sensory range of
other aesthetic evaluations of MTBE in drinking water,'' Kneiss noted.
He added that the 15 ppb level would ``shield more than 95 percent of
the consuming population from threshold perceptions of MTBE in water
and would be consistent with the standard settings rational used by the
State of California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
other constituents in water.''
The study design for the comprehensive test was developed by
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., a California-based national environmental
consulting firm. The test itself was recently conducted by National
Food Laboratory, located in Dublin, California.
Previous studies to evaluate the aesthetic properties of MTBE used
a smaller number of ``professional'' panelists and had protocol
limitations that impacted test results. This new study followed the
established American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) protocol
for evaluations by a substantially larger panel of non-professional
test subjects (in this case, 57 consumers). In addition, to maximize
panelist responses, odor-free bottled water from a commercial supplier
was used for the testing procedure.
Finally, the protocol, the testing procedures, and the
interpretation of the study's results were subjected to review by an
Expert Advisory Panel, consisting of Dr. Richard Berk of the University
of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Dr. Mel Suffet, also of UCLA, and
Dr. Mike McGuire, of McGuire Environmental Consultants.
The test procedures called for each consumer ``panelist'' to sniff
three separate, odor-neutral plastic cups of water and to identify
which one contained a concentration of MTBE. In this study, the sample
that smelled ``different from the other two samples'' was declared the
sample containing MTBE. If the consumer was unable to detect any
difference in odor, they were asked to guess which cup contained the
MTBE.
In addition to standard statistical analysis, a more rigorous
assessment of the test results, conducted by Dr. Bak, took into
consideration the possibility of incorrectly Messing which cup
contained MTBE, as well as any incorrect identification of a cup
containing the bottled water as having MTBE in it. When the statistical
analysis of such human errors were calculated, using the more rigorous
methodologies, the analysis showed that the concentration at which 5
percent or less of the population might detect the presence of MTBE in
water would be no lower than 22 ppb.
Based on the overall evaluation of the testing and statistical
analysis, the expert panel concluded that the more conservative, direct
results of the odor test data (i.e., the 15 ppb detection) should be
used in setting a secondary standard that Filly maintains water quality
for the consuming population.
A copy of the MTBE odor study is available by calling Carolyn
Anderson at OFN at 703-841-7100. Fax requests can be sent to 703-841-
7720 A comprehensive summary of the study can also be downloaded from
OFA's web site at www.ofa.net.
__________
Statement of Tosco Corporation
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: This statement is
submitted on behalf of Tosco Corporation in support of the bipartisan
bills sponsored by Senator Feinstein (S. 1576) and Congressman Bilbray
(H.R. 630). The bills will allow California cleaner burning gasoline
(``CARB Gasoline'') to satisfy Federal reformulated gasoline (``RFG'')
requirements in California, so long as CARB Gasoline provides emission
reductions at least equivalent to Federal RFG. These bills provide a
critically important opportunity to preserve the air quality benefits
of the Federal and State RFG programs while safeguarding California's
drinking water supplies.
Tosco is one of the largest refiners and marketers of gasoline in
California. We operate three refineries in California, which produce
significant amounts of CARB Gasoline. We market CARB gasoline through
our network of 1,600 retail outlets in the State which sell under our
Union 76, Circle K and BP brands.
Our company has taken the lead in calling for reduced use of MTBE
in California. In October 1997, we directed a letter to the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) expressing our concern about potential MTBE
contamination of drinking water. Our letter urged adoption of the
Feinstein-Bilbray legislation as ``a good first step'' which would
provide the flexibility refiners need to begin shifting away from MTBE.
As a refiner serving the California market, we find ourselves in a
``catch 22'' situation where the Federal RFG requirements and the
shared gasoline distribution system operate to effectively leave us no
choice but to use MTBE to meet the clean fuel standards in California.
Passage of the Feinstein-Bilbray legislation would eliminate the
Federal year-round oxygenate mandate in California and enable us to
meet California's stringent fuel standards with less oxygenate, no
oxygenate, or with other oxygenates, such as ethanol.
Tosco strongly believes that Congress has the opportunity, by
enacting the Feinstein-Bilbray legislation, to facilitate an immediate
reduction in MTBE use in California without any adverse effect on the
air quality goals of the Federal RFG program. In this regard, we can
assure this committee that, if the present bill becomes law, our
company will immediately take appropriate steps to phaseout the use of
MTBE in California.
Health impacts aside, MTBE has a low odor and taste threshold which
will make drinking water unacceptable to the consumer. And since
oxygenates are not necessary to produce clean gasoline, we do not see
the logic in continuing to mandate their use on a year-round basis. The
mandate is especially anomalous in the face of the potential threat to
drinking water supplies posed by MTBE.
Passage of the Feinstein-Bilbray legislation will neither mandate
nor ban the use of MTBE in California. By removing the current oxygen
mandate, the legislation will simply allow California refiners to use
lesser amounts of oxygenates or no oxygenates at all. Under
California's performance-based standards, the air quality benefits of
the Federal and State RFG programs will be maintained.
In addition, we believe ethanol can play an important role in
replacing MTBE in California. In April of this year, Tosco initiated a
pilot program to substitute ethanol for MTBE in gasoline sold at about
50 of our Union 76 retail outlets in Northern California. Although this
represents a small portion of our California fuel sales, the pilot
program has demonstrated that CARB gasoline can be produced using
ethanol in place of MTBE. We have received very positive consumer
response to this program and we hope to be able to extend the pilot
program beyond its initial 6-month duration.
Because gasoline blended with MTBE dominates California's shared
pipeline distribution system, it is currently not feasible to produce
and distribute commercial scale volumes of base gasoline suitable for
blending with ethanol. To the extent that the refining industry's
dependence on MTBE is reduced by enactment of Feinstein-Bilbray, a
parallel distribution system could evolve for handling base gasoline
for ethanol blending. This option could prove to be particularly
feasible in CO nonattainment areas, primarily in Southern California,
where oxygenated gasoline will continue to be required during the
winter season.
Finally, I want to assure the committee that Tosco stands ready to
work with Congress, and with Federal and State regulators, on measures
to protect both air quality and water quality. Tosco has made a
substantial financial investment in equipment to produce CARB gasoline.
We are proud of our role in helping to improve air quality in
California, and we are confident that, with the passage of Feinstein-
Bilbray, we will be able to help reduce the risk of water contamination
from MTBE in gasoline.
-