Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
May 18, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 453 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 18, 1999 GEORGE V.VOINOVICH SENATE ENVIRONMENT
AND PUBLIC WORKS EPA'S PROPOSED SULPHUR STANDARD
BODY:
Senator George V. Voinovich Opening Remarks
Hearing on Proposed Low Sulfur Gasoline Standards May 18, 1999
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you are conducting these hearings this week on EPA's
proposed low sulfur gasoline standards. I am also pleased that
there is a fellow Ohioan joining us today on the second panel, Corky Frank,
president of Marathon Ashland Petroleum in Findlay, Ohio. Marathon Ashland is
the 4th largest U.S. refiner, which operates seven refineries and operates over
fifty-four-hundred retail outlets in 20 states. For a long time I have been
concerned that EPA is not adequately taking costs, benefits and sound science
into consideration during the rulemaking process - particularly those involving
clean air standards. Indeed, just recently a U.S. appeals court remanded EPA's
ozone and PM2.5 standards, ruling that EPA did not justify its decision with
sound scientific evidence. Ohio was a party to this lawsuit, which began when I
was Governor. The court didn't say that EPA couldn't regulate at these levels,
but that EPA didn't give justification for doing so. That has been my point all
along. For a long time, I have argued that the NAAQS standards and the NOx SIP
call were going to be costly and that we didn't even know if making those
investments was going to solve the problem. Well, the chickens have come home to
roost. EPA's inflexible and costly approach to the NAAQS and NOx SIP call have
created hardship that leaves little flexibility for states and businesses to
comply with upcoming new air regulations that are required under the Clean Air
Act. For instance, the proposed new Tier 2 and low sulfur
gasoline standards have pitted two industries - industries that depend
on each other - against each other. It has put the oil and auto industries at
odds with each other. This deeply concerns me. I want to ensure that EPA is not
moving forward with regulations that have not been studied carefully to
determine their effects. I think it is important that we make EPA accountable.
Through these hearings we need to let Congress and the American people know what
goals are anticipated, the health benefits that are expected and what costs will
be imposed on consumers if these proposed standards are implemented. I want to
know what health and safety benefits are expected and whether other safety
issues have been factored in. In the end, I want to know whether the proposed
goals are reasonable and attainable, whether the proposed standards would
achieve those goals and whether there is good science that leads us to believe
that those goals will be achieved. Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for
conducting these hearings. I look forward to today's testimony.
LOAD-DATE: May 19, 1999