Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
May 20, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 669 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 20, 1999 JIM INHOFE CHAIRMAN SENATE ENVIRONMENT
AND PUBLIC WORKS CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NUCLEAR SAFETY EPA S
PROPOSED SULFUR STANDARD
BODY:
OPENING STATEMENT of Senator Jim Inhofe, Chairman Clean Air Subcommittee
Hearing on Sulfur Levels in Gasoline Thursday
May 20, 1999 The Hearing will come to order. Today is the second day of hearings
on the EPA's proposed sulfur standard, which is part of the
Tier Two Automobile standards. On Tuesday we heard from States, the Oil and Auto
industries, a public interest group and a witness representing an alternative
biotechnology. Today, we hear from the EPA, Bob Perciasepe, the Assistant
Administrator for Air. We scheduled the EPA on the second day as a courtesy to
the Agency. This allows the EPA to respond to points raised by the other
witnesses. I have many concerns regarding the EPA's proposed
sulfur standards. After Tuesday's hearing my concerns have
increased. I have been raising a number of issues to the Administration
regarding sulfur for over a year, and these issues were not
answered or addressed in the proposed rulemaking. I was extremely disappointed
that my concerns were largely ignored by the EPA in the proposal. The EPA's
proposed sulfur standard is an unworkable program which, if
enacted, would jeopardize and create disruptions in our national fuel supply,
will lead to the closing of refineries, threaten our national security by making
us more reliant on foreign refined products, and will provide limited benefit to
the environment. On Tuesday I explained some of my major concerns, after
listening to the testimony Tuesday I am adding to my concerns and I will just
list them briefly. 1. Small Refiners -The EPA has failed to justify why they are
using a 1500 employee definition, particularly when other sections of the Clean
Air Act use a volume definition. 2. Small Refineries - The cost margins are the
same whether a refinery is owned by a large company or a small company. 3.
Phase-In Time - EPA has provided the Auto's with a generous phase-in time while
ignoring the equipment installation problems for refineries. 4. Cost Data - The
EPA's cost data assumes everyone will use the new equipment which has only been
installed in one refinery to date. 5. Regional Approach - The Western Governors
overwhelmingly object to the national standard and their concerns have not been
addressed. 6. New Technologies - The EPA has ignored important new alternative
technologies such as Biotech, which will not be ready for the 2004 deadline. 7.
Closures - The EPA believes no refineries will close, without conducting a
detailed Refinery review like the one conducted by Canada which found that 3-6
of their 18 Refineries would close. 8. National Security - Ignoring the refinery
closure issue, EPA has failed to consider the impacts on our national security
by creating a greater reliance on foreign refined products. 9. The Banking and
Trading program is too little too late. 10. Cost Effectiveness - The EPA did not
cost out other approaches to reducing the pollutant, such as other
sulfur levels or phase in dates. 11. MTBE Usage - Just like
they didn't consider the negative health impacts of ozone reduction, they did
not consider the impact of increased MTBE usage. 12. Cost of
Gasoline - Due to EPA's incorrect equipment cost projection and
supply disruptions they have grossly underestimated the cost impact on
gasoline. This is not an exhaustive list, I do have other
issues which I will raise in the question period. I do want to say a brief word
about the recent NAAQS court case. While the court did not address the Tier Two
regulations, it is important to note and remind the Agency that for the last
three years EPA has claimed that new auto and fuel standards are necessary to
help areas meet the new air standards. I also want to point out that in the
proposed Tier Two rule the EPA uses the term "8 hour standard" 48 times; "new
ozone" appears twice; "new PM" appears 5 times; and PM 2.5 appears 35 times. For
anyone to say that the EPA has not relied on the new NAAQS standards for this
rulemaking they simply are not reading the record.
LOAD-DATE: May 21, 1999