Submission of Written Comments to the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee
By Thomas L. Adams, President – Oxygenated Fuels Association
(OFA)
May 11, 2001
Mr. Chairman – Our nation continues to face an energy
crisis. Additionally, as you are well
aware, the overwhelming majority of citizens continue to express a strong
desire for cleaner air. One of the tools that is successfully employed in
battling both the energy supply and clean air dilemmas is Methyl Tertiary Butyl
Ether (MTBE). However, it is being
challenged by some who have concerns about its perceived threat to groundwater
and surface water. As President of the
association representing international and domestic companies engaged in the
manufacture and sale of MTBE, we urge you to avoid a rush to judgement that
could seriously impact the nation's precarious energy supply and potentially
undo the clean air strides that have been made.
A summary of my testimony is as follows:
• MTBE plays a key role
in improving air quality.
• MTBE makes up roughly
4 volume percent of the US gasoline pool (11% or more in many major
metropolitan areas) and with refineries operating at near capacity levels,
elimination of this component could have lasting negative impacts on price and
supply of gasoline.
• MTBE is not a human
health threat. In fact, there are many
examples of the significant role played by MTBE in improving the health
of all Americans. Despite press
accounts, no national or international agency has ever classified MTBE as a
carcinogen.
• Where gasoline
components have contaminated drinking water sources, the cause of the problem
is a release of gasoline due to leaks from underground storage tanks.
I would like to now briefly address the benefits of MTBE, health
effects concerns, its impact on water quality and the options that the nation
has as alternatives to its use.
The
Environmental Benefits of MTBE
It is important to review the accomplishments of the
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program, and the role that MTBE has played in those
accomplishments. The Clean Air Act requires that all RFG must contain 2
percent, by weight, of oxygen. There are two primary oxygenates being used in
the RFG gasoline pool today: MTBE and ethanol. MTBE is a product that is made
by combining methanol and isobutylene. It is manufactured by refineries and by
chemical companies. Congress was wise enough to allow the marketplace to
determine the most cost effective or efficient source of oxygen for RFG. For a
variety of environmental, commercial, and performance-related reasons, MTBE has
become the oxygenate-of-choice for making RFG for those regions outside the
Mid-West. MTBE is used in 80-85 percent of all the RFG produced today.
The RFG program consists of two phases: Phase I - the period
from 1995 through 1999. Phase II started at the beginning of 2000.
EPA has compiled data for the United States showing that Phase I
RFG has surpassed the requirements of the Clean Air Act. An analysis of the
Phase I RFG produced by refiners shows that the fuel reduces ozone-forming
compounds, such as VOCs, by over 28 percent -- that's 44 percent above the 15
percent requirement of the law. Emissions of air toxics are reduced by
approximately 30 percent -- that's almost twice as much as required by law.
Ambient air monitoring confirms that the RFG program is working.
Testing shows that benzene levels have declined by 31 percent between 1994 and
1997; levels of ethyl benzene, another toxic component of gasoline, have
declined 52 percent during the same period. RFG areas also showed significant
decreases in other vehicle-related VOC concentrations. EPA has testified that
the emissions reductions required for Phase I RFG - which have been met and
exceeded -- and the emissions reductions of Phase II RFG -- which are already nearly
met -- are equivalent to taking more than 16 million vehicles off the road.
As a key component of RFG, MTBE contributes to the environmental
benefits of RFG in several ways. First, by adding MTBE to gasoline, refiners
dilute or displace gasoline components such as aromatics (benzene, toluene and
xylene) which contribute to the formation of ozone and emissions of toxics and
PM (particulate matter). These compounds themselves are hazardous air
pollutants. EPA has acknowledged that if oxygenates were not used to produce
RFG, levels of aromatics may have to be increased to provide the necessary
octane.
Second, by adding MTBE to RFG, refiners improve the combustion
of the gasoline, resulting in fewer emissions of smog-forming pollutants, such
as VOCs and carbon monoxide, as well as Particulate Matter. Use of MTBE reduces
harmful exhaust emissions, which due to their highly reactive nature causes a
disproportionate amount of smog formation.
Third, MTBE has a lower vapor pressure -the rate at which it
evaporates- than the primary competitive product, ethanol, and many other
volatile components of gasoline. Lower vapor pressure equates to lower
evaporative emissions of VOCs.
Fourth, oxygenates, like MTBE, play a particularly important
role in significantly reducing emissions from millions of small engines without
catalytic converters. In California,
these small, off-road engines used in recreation, gardening and forestry
account for a significant level of toxic air
emissions from mobile sources.
Health Effects
of MTBE
The detections of MTBE in a small percentage of nation’s
drinking water supplies have prompted questions concerning the health effects
of MTBE. Those with a desire to see MTBE removed from the marketplace have gone
further to suggest that little is known about the health effects of MTBE. In
fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
MTBE's first contribution to the health of Americans was as a
replacement for lead in gasoline in the late 1970s. MTBE was added to maintain
octane in the fuel. Under the Clean Air Act, the refiners' ability to use MTBE
in unleaded fuel was subject to EPA approval. The refiners made the appropriate
demonstrations, including providing information on the known health effects of
MTBE, and EPA approved the use of MTBE at concentrations of up to seven
percent, by volume. In 1981, EPA approved a blending of MTBE in unleaded
gasoline to a maximum of 11 weight percent. In the early 1980s, refiners
created an industry study group, managed by the American Petroleum Institute.
The industry group sponsored a toxicology testing program and
submitted the results to EPA.
In 1986, a Federal Interagency Testing Committee, acting under
authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act, recommended additional testing
of MTBE based on expected increased production levels, potential exposure as a
gasoline component, and the need to complete data sets. The industry agreed to
conduct such testing and established a program under EPA oversight and
guidelines. From 1988 until 1992, the industry testing group sponsored and/or
conducted all of the tests required by EPA. Progress reports on these tests
were submitted to EPA for inclusion in the public docket. In 1988, EPA approved
the blending of MTBE in unleaded gasoline to a maximum of 15 percent by volume.
In addition to the industry-sponsored tests, toxicologists at
EPA's laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio conducted the first examination of the
risks of exposure to MTBE by ingestion. The peer-reviewed study, reported in
the Journal of the American College of Toxicology, did not identify any adverse
long-term effects associated with exposure to MTBE. Regretfully, MTBE is repeatedly and incorrectly treated as “the
skunk at the garden party.” The popular
media characterize it as a “probable” or “possible” carcinogen.
In 1999, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
part of the World Health Organization, conducted a review of the existing
research on the chronic (long-term) effects of exposure to MTBE. IARC can
classify a substance into one of five categories: Group 1 carcinogenic to humans; Group 2A --
probably carcinogenic to humans; Group 2B possibly carcinogenic to humans;
Group 3 -- unclassifiable as to carcinogenic risk to humans; and Group 4 --
probably not carcinogenic to humans. The IARC review put MTBE in Group 3,
concluding that there is "inadequate evidence in humans for the
carcinogenicity" of MTBE. Such a finding places MTBE in the same category
as caffeine, tea, and fluorescent lighting.
As an aside, you might find it interesting to know that MTBE has
been used by physicians for years to dissolve gall stones within the human
body. Other respected and recognized
expert bodies who have recently examined the scientific weight of evidence on
MTBE and have also declined to list it as a known, probable, possible or likely
human carcinogen include the California Proposition 65 Scientific Advisory
Panel Carcinogen Identification Committee and the Federal National Toxicology
Program (NTP).
In May 2000, the National Institute for Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) released its congressionally mandated report on cancer-causing
substances. The report declined to list MTBE as a cancer-causing agent or as an
agent likely to cause cancer, but did, however, add ethanol-based beverage
alcohol to the list of known carcinogens. As recently as December 20, 2000, the
European Union environmental agency's Classification Labeling Committee
announced that it had determined that MTBE was not classifiable as a human carcinogen and that it would not
ban MTBE.
In summary, we do not believe there is any credible evidence
that indicates MTBE presents a significant risk to human health from either a
short-term exposure or over a longer term. Over 80studies have concluded there
is no risk to human health. Ethanol on the other hand has been classified as a
known human carcinogen. What is clear is that MTBE has resulted in reduced
cancer risk by reducing hazardous air pollutants.
Impact on Water Quality
While MTBE quietly labored as the workhorse of the Clean Air Act
since 1992, few in the public took notice until MTBE was detected in a few,
isolated sources of drinking water, principally in California. A recent study
("A Screening Level Assessment of Household Exposures to MTBE in California
Drinking Water," Williams, P.R., et.al.) in the March 2000 edition of
Soil, Sediment & Groundwater indicates that the average MTBE concentrations
in California have steadily declined over the 1995-99 time period. The source
of MTBE contamination of drinking water supplies in most cases is leaking
underground gasoline storage tanks. For example, the South Lake Tahoe area in
California is served by seven local gas stations. According to testimony given
during the California public hearings on groundwater contamination by MTBE, all
of these stations were leaking gasoline into the groundwater; not surprisingly,
this gasoline eventually found its way into the water supply for South Lake
Tahoe, California. Violations of existing regulations included evidence of disabled
dispenser sensors, poor installation, disabled leak detection, and inadequate
documentation of annual inspections.
This problem primarily can be attributed to inefficiencies in
California's tank program. Some 107 agencies and authorities have jurisdiction
over gasoline tanks in California. For primarily this reason, the EPA has not
certified California's UST Program. Studies and field experience show that
leaking underground tanks of gasoline have been the main source of MTBE in the
isolated instances where it has been found in groundwater in the past. Other
studies show that spills of gasoline with MTBE on surface soils or water are
not a significant threat to drinking water supplies. Like other gasoline
components, MTBE will easily volatize into the atmosphere within days. It also
easily biodegrades in these surface waters. As a result, any contamination that
might occur from a surface spill is generally of short duration.
It is important to have some context in evaluating the
frequencies, and levels, of MTBE detections in drinking water supplies. The
majority of detections of MTBE in groundwater have been at 2 ppb or less. To
put the term ppb (parts per billion) in perspective, 1 ppb equates to a time
span of 1 second in 31.7 years. Therefore, 2 ppb equates to a time span of less
than 5 seconds in the life of the average person. There is currently no
enforceable Federal standard for MTBE in drinking water, although EPA has
recently required public water systems to monitor for MTBE in their drinking
water supplies and report that information to EPA. The EPA has established an
MTBE Drinking Water Guideline based only on aesthetics of 20-40 ppb noting that
there "is little likelihood that an MTBE concentration of 20 to 40 ppb in
drinking water would cause adverse health effects in humans".
Lastly, if there is a problem with MTBE in groundwater, the
answer is to fix the source of the problem – leaking underground storage
tanks. A most recent report by the
General Accounting Office (GAO) states that while state compliance with federal
equipment requirements is high, operational and maintenance problems could lead
to spills, leaks and health risks.
Alternative
Oxygenates
Much has been made of ethanol as a potential substitute for MTBE
as a fuel oxygenate. In those areas of the country where reliance on ethanol
makes some economic sense, it is already the oxygenate of choice and federal
law itself is, of course, neutral as to which oxygenate may be used. However,
greatly expanded use of ethanol makes little sense.
First, expanding ethanol use will come at the expense of air
quality. Use of ethanol is not as effective at combating air toxics and even
increases levels of certain toxics called aldehydes; and peroxyacyl nitrates
(PAN). Ethanol is less effective at controlling criteria air pollutants as
well. NESCAUM (the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management) has
previously commented that, "Greater emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) would occur during the early and late portions of the
[Northeast] region's ozone season since gasoline blended with ethanol is more
volatile than similar gasoline without ethanol. " In addition, the higher
volatility ethanol-blended gasoline can contribute to an overloading of an
automobile's evaporative canister and subsequently lead to higher CO emissions.
EPA has acknowledged that the increased use of ethanol will result in increased
NOx emissions.
Oxygenates like MTBE go to work in an engine at the point where
most pollution is produced: the cold cycle. For the first three to four minutes
after you start your ignition, your car's engine produces the majority of its
emissions. Because oxygenates combust at low temperatures with MTBE combusting
at far lower temperatures than ethanol – fuel chemistry clearly demonstrates
that MTBE is the most effective component of pollution control when the car is
still relatively cold. In addition, to meet the other federal specifications,
RFG without oxygenates would have to increase its ratio of aromatics. The result
of this change is two-fold: first, there will be a certain increase in air
toxics from automobiles; and second, more ozone precursors from the use of
aromatics will be created. In fact, if
ethanol is used to replace MTBE, it is more volatile than MTBE and therefore
would increase evaporative emissions.
It is not at all clear that greater reliance on ethanol will
help resolve any problems with water quality. Gasoline contains a range of
aromatics, such as benzene, toluene, andxylene that are among its most toxic
components. In subsurface conditions, studies have indicated that ethanol, as
part of gasoline, will extend the benzene plumes by 20% to 27%or more by
interfering with the biodegradability of these aromatics, thus creating the
potential for a significant source of toxic water contaminants. Given that
ethanol can't be blended at the refinery and must be blended at the terminal,
this raises a concern about ethanol and it's handling in pure form. And, of
course, IARC has classified ethanol as a known carcinogen.
Even if expanded ethanol production were a good idea, ethanol
cannot be produced in sufficient quantities economically to satisfy America's
needs within the RFG program. Indeed, it is unlikely that ethanol can meet its
current demands in the Midwest while cost-effectively supplying any new markets
on either coast. Just take a look at
the cost of ethanol based RFG in the Chicago area. A Congressional Research
Service Study issued on June 16, 2000 indicates that RFG with ethanol ran
roughly 50 cents per gallon higher than MTBE gasoline with 25 cents of that
differential attributed to the RFG program with ethanol blending as the
oxygenate. This is due to the difficulty in making the non-oyxgenated
hydrocarbon portion of the RFG for ethanol known as RBOB. The supplies of
gasoline components that can be used with ethanol in RFG are more limited,
which contributes to a tighter RFG supply and higher cost. Imagine trying to
make an ethanol based RFG that is thousands of miles away from the ethanol
supply and which could be further complicated by transportation difficulties
and potential summer droughts.
MTBE has extended the nation's supply of gasoline, contributing
to the historic low gasoline prices around the country in recent years.
Ethanol, due to it's high volatility problem, and the restrictive consequences
it places on refiners, has a net impact of reducing the nation's gasoline
supply, and thereby increasing the nation’s gasoline prices.
Ethanol has logistical problems, including its inability to be
carried in gasoline blends through pipelines, the most efficient way to
transport fuels. Further, ethanol costs the American taxpayer 53 cents for
every gallon consumed. As CBS News described ethanol, it is "probably the
most economically inefficient, unwarranted form of corporate welfare in our
entire federal budget." (Eye on America segment, 3/26/96) The American Road and Transportation
Builders Association stated in testimony before the U. S. Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee that the current ethanol tax subsidy deprived the
Federal Highway Trust Fund of approximately $1.1billion/year.
In a nutshell, ethanol, in spite of all the state and federal
welfare it receives is not an effective or economically viable alternative.
Conclusion
It is clear that there is no credible evidence that MTBE
presents a significant risk to human health, either from short-term exposures
or over a longer term. What is clear is that MTBE has resulted in significant
reductions in cancer risk by reducing hazardous air pollutants. It has also
helped clean the air and we as a nation continue to need to continuously combat
the issue of dirty air. The pressure to
address the groundwater contamination problems created by leaking underground
storage tanks puts several questions in stark relief.
First, is there a need to replace MTBE? The answer is no.
Detection data indicates that as underground storage tank compliance improves,
detections of MTBE in drinking water supplies decrease. Nationally, measured in
the mid 90's when our UST compliance was only 20% to40 %, less than 1 % of the
community water system detections had concentrations exceeding20 ppb.
Therefore, the risks to drinking water supplies are decreasing with time, not
increasing as some claim.
Second, is there a viable replacement for MTBE? Again, the
answer is no. Alternatives to MTBE,
including ethanol, are more expensive and more difficult to transport. Industry
experts estimate that even under ideal circumstances, replacing MTBE with
ethanol will raise prices at the pump a minimum of seven cents or more a
gallon. But prices could rise much higher than that if shortages of ethanol
and, as a result, of gasoline develop. Currently, refiners use about 286,000
barrels a day of MTBE; total ethanol
capacity is far less than half of that today, and most of that ethanol is
already committed to supplying octane in other gasolines.
Third, if you restrict or prohibit the use of MTBE, can you be
certain that you will not increase the risks of adverse health effects? Some
refiners claim that they can make RFG without oxygenates that meets the Federal
Phase II requirements, but is there any third-party independent confirmation?
EPA has such a question pending before it in the form of request from
California, but it seems very reluctant to say yes or no. And possibilities do
not always equate to practice. Oxygenates in Phase I RFG allowed for
over-achievement. Eliminating
oxygenates from Phase II requirements may effectively limit the possibility of
similar results.
Finally, what are the other consequences of taking MTBE out of
the gasoline supply?
As described above, MTBE constitutes a significant percentage of the
gasoline pool. If you take away that volume, what are the supply and price
ramifications? I think we have seen the answer to that in the spike in gasoline
prices across the nation last summer.
President Bush recently stated to the National Energy Policy
Development Group, that if we have a price spike in refined product, "It’s
going to be because we don't have enough capacity, refining capacity - we're
not generating enough product."
Our present energy problems will only be compounded by removing
this beneficial product from our gasoline supplies. I urge you to avoid a rush
to judgement.
I thank you again for the opportunity to offer written comments
on this important issue.