[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7850-S7855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
  S. 2962. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to address problems 
concerning methyl tertiary butyl ether, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


               THE FEDERAL REFORMULATED FUELS ACT OF 2000

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I have introduced 
legislation, S. 2962, which I believe will deal once and for all with 
the MTBE problem that is facing us all across America, specifically New 
England. In the Northeast, as well as California and other areas of the 
country, we are beginning to see evidence of MTBE in ground water. This 
is a serious environmental problem that must be addressed. It is 
certainly a problem in New Hampshire.
  I rise today to speak for my constituents in New Hampshire who are 
now having their wells, several a week by the way, being contaminated 
by MTBE. This is my home State. This is a serious problem there. I am 
here to offer this legislation to help my constituents in New Hampshire 
get relief from MTBE, which is a pollutant in their wells. But I am 
also here to speak for all Americans across the country who have MTBE 
in their wells, whether they be in California or New Hampshire.
  MTBE has done more damage to our drinking water than we would care to 
know. MTBE has been a component of our fuel supply for over two 
decades. In 1990, we amended the Clean Air Act to include a clean 
gasoline program. Unfortunately, we did not look at the science that 
was probably more evident than not. Because we did not look at that 
science, we have now created another environmental problem of a huge 
magnitude, which is probably going to cost billions of dollars to clean 
up. If there is a moral here, or lesson, it should be: Use good 
science. Look carefully before you leap into some of these 
environmental dilemmas.
  That program in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment mandated use of 2 
percent oxygen in the gas, by weight. In other words, 2 percent of the 
weight of a gallon of gasoline should be oxygen. That was put in the 
fuel.
  MTBE was one of two options that could be used. The problem with MTBE 
is that it has this ability to migrate through the ground very quickly 
and then into the water table. What is MTBE? It is an ether, and in the 
event of a leak or gas spill, the MTBE will separate from the gas and 
migrate through the ground very quickly. The real problem starts when 
MTBE finds its way into the ground water, which it frequently does.

[[Page S7851]]

  Several States have had gasoline leaks, or spills, that led to the 
closure of wells because of MTBE. It smells. It tastes horrible. It is 
not the kind of thing you want to see come out of your shower or your 
faucet when you are ready to use your water. This is a serious problem. 
Some have made light of it, frankly, in this body, in the sense that 
maybe it is not such a serious problem and maybe we should look at some 
other alternatives other than banning it. But we need to ban MTBE. The 
legislation I am introducing today will do that. It does it in a 
responsible manner, which I will explain.
  Several States have had these leaks or spills, as I said. So this 
bill will address the problems associated with MTBE, but--and this is a 
very important point--will not reduce any of the environmental benefits 
of the clean air program. That cannot be said with every option that 
has been presented on this issue. Again, we can ban MTBE, but we will 
not reduce any environmental benefit that the MTBE has brought to clean 
the air and that is important.
  Briefly, this bill will allow the Governor of any State to waive the 
gasoline oxygen requirement of the Clean Air Act--waive it. But it will 
preserve the environmental benefits. It will also grant the State and 
the Federal Government authority to ban MTBE. It authorizes an 
additional $200 million out of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Fund to clean up MTBE where these wells have been contaminated because 
of these leaking tanks. In other words, if we could repair those 
leaking tanks, we are going to cut back on the amount of problems we 
are going to have in the future. So it is important we have this as 
part of the legislation to get the money there to fix these tanks, to 
cut back on the amount of MTBE that gets into the ground water. If it 
does not leak out of the tank, the gasoline tank, it will not get into 
the ground water. But it is leaking out of tanks and we have to fix it.

  The bill also authorizes an extensive study of numerous environmental 
consequences of our current fuel use. It was my hope to have marked up 
and sent to the floor from the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
which I chair, a bill this past week. In fact, it was our goal to do it 
yesterday, but we could not get the parties together who I needed to 
make this bill a reality, in the sense that it would pass. We could 
have introduced a bill, could have marked a bill, perhaps, but it would 
not have passed because we would not have the support. This problem is 
too serious to play politics.
  MTBE is a pollutant in our wells. We need to get it out. We have to 
have legislation to do it and it has to pass. There is no point 
introducing a bill that will not pass. There are people who are dug in 
on all sides of this issue for various reasons. But the point is, we 
need to compromise. We all cannot get what we want, but the end result 
must be that we get MTBE out of our ground water. That is the bottom 
line.
  So I agreed, reluctantly, but I agreed, in the interests of working 
together with my colleagues, to hold off until September in order to 
resolve the few remaining issues, but I intend to hold that markup in 
September. In fact, the specific date is September 7. In that 
legislation that we mark up, we will ban MTBE.
  The issues that are in this legislation include the treatment of 
ethanol. I am pleased with the recent progress we have made on this. 
But there is a serious problem that we have to deal with, those who 
advocate more ethanol in fuel. I expect these issues to be resolved. We 
are working behind the scenes very hard to resolve these issues before 
the September 7 markup. It will give the staff something to do during 
the August recess. I know they will work out the details. But I thank 
the many Senators on both sides of the aisle I have been working with 
very closely to resolve these issues. This is a tough, tough issue, and 
it is hard to get agreement. Everybody is not going to get what they 
want, but the bottom line is, we have to get MTBE out of the water.
  Let me address the ethanol issue for a moment. Some weeks ago I 
circulated a draft that included a clean alternative fuels program. 
This is a very complex issue. What are alternative fuels? It could be 
premium gasoline. It could be natural gas. It could be electricity. It 
could be fuel cells. It could be ethanol. But if you say ``renewable 
fuels,'' then you are talking for the most part only ethanol. So when 
we are talking alternative fuels, what alternatives do we have to MTBE 
that would help us meet these requirements in the Clean Air Act? This 
has proven to be a good step toward addressing the ethanol question.
  The program will also enhance the development of cleaner and more 
efficient cars which will help with the Clean Air Act issues as well. 
There has been growing support for this alternative fuels approach 
since the time we first brought this up. We do not want to create more 
MTBE problems. We do not want to create dirtier air by eliminating MTBE 
because we created dirty water by putting MTBEs in gasoline.

  So last week in an effort, again, to reach out, I received a letter 
supporting that approach from 32 States represented by air quality 
planners in the northeastern States and the Governors' Ethanol 
Coalition. So for the first time we now have ethanol, and the 
Northeast, you have specific problems here with the MTBE issue, 
talking, working together, and, as we said, from this letter of support 
from 32 States, they support this approach.
  We have not dotted every ``i'' and crossed every ``t'' yet, but in 
concept they support the approach.
  The bill I am offering today, while that bill does not include the 
exact language they are talking about in that letter--and I want to 
make that clear--it is a bridge. It is a bridge from where my 
legislation is to where they are. Actually, simultaneously to the bill 
I have introduced, I have also offered an amendment No. 4026, which 
crosses that bridge. I have introduced what I would like to have, what 
I believe is the most cost-effective method to deal with this problem, 
but I recognize that even though it is the least costly, it does not 
have the amount of support I need to pass it. So I have offered another 
amendment to my own bill, which is my way of saying: OK, you offered me 
the bridge. I am willing to walk across it and meet you at least 
halfway.
  I will describe this bill in a little more detail first. This is a 
complex issue. The Environmental and Public Works Committee has been 
struggling with this, certainly in the last 7 or 8 months I have been 
chairman of the committee, and I am sure they were struggling with it 
many months before that. I have tried to craft a solution that is 
direct and balanced. I believe I have accomplished that. That is my 
goal. It is not to ramrod anything through to make anybody angry. It is 
a legitimate attempt to get a consensus to deal with a serious 
environmental problem, not to deal with everybody's own opinions.
  If anybody comes to the table and says: If I do not get this, I will 
leave the table--I tell the people who say that: Don't bother coming to 
the table; you are wasting my time and yours. If you want to, talk, 
compromise, and reach a rational conclusion. I am willing to talk, and 
Senators on all sides of this have done just that. We have talked to 
many industry folks and environmental people as well on this very 
issue.
  The bill waives the oxygen mandate. The Reformulated Gasoline 
Program, or RFG, requires at least 2 percent of gasoline by weight to 
be oxygen. MTBE and ethanol are the principal additives that help 
satisfy this mandate. It is ethanol or MTBE. They will bring us to that 
2 percent oxygenate requirement. Because MTBE is rarely used outside 
the Reformulated Gas Program, a sensible starting point was to allow 
each State, if they wish, to waive the oxygen requirement.

  What about the so-called environmental backsliding; in other words, 
slipping back and allowing more dirty air? There is concern that if the 
Governors waive this mandate that this will affect the environmental 
benefit--clean air--of the Reformulated Gas Program.
  Let me be very clear: My bill ensures there will be no environmental 
backsliding. We are not walking away from the requirements of the Clean 
Air Act. If this bill is adopted, the environment--at least the air--
will not know the difference. There will be no negative impact on the 
air, and the water will be cleaner.
  Phaseout of MTBE: Eliminating the 2 percent oxygen mandate alone does 
not

[[Page S7852]]

mean the elimination of MTBE. MTBE is an effective octane booster, and 
refiners still may want to use it. Since only a very small amount of 
MTBE will cause a tremendous amount of damage, it is important to 
consider the fate of MTBE.
  This bill will give the EPA Administrator the authority to ban it 
immediately. If EPA does not do so in 4 years, then this bill will, by 
law, ban MTBE. The EPA has 4 years to ban it. If they do not, the bill 
will.
  EPA could, however, overturn the ban if it deemed it was not 
necessary to protect air quality, water quality, or human health. If it 
gets to the point that it is not a problem, then EPA does not have to 
ban it. Notwithstanding EPA's decision, the bill gives the States the 
authority to ban the additive.
  Since there is already massive contamination caused by MTBE, this 
bill will authorize, as I said, $200 million to be given to the States 
from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program for the purpose of 
cleaning up MTBE-caused contamination.
  Since a Federal mandate caused this pollution--remember that a 
Federal mandate caused this pollution. This is not the fault of the oil 
companies. It is not the fault of the MTBE producers. They did what 
they were asked to do. They produced this additive to clean up the air. 
Since a Federal mandate caused the pollution, it would be irresponsible 
for the Federal Government not to bear some of the financial burden 
associated with the cleanup. Unfortunately, that is the case.
  I do not like to spend taxpayers' dollars, but this was a mandate, 
and because of that mandate, we have a problem.
  It is also important to point out that although it is not part of my 
legislation, it is reasonable to think of some way of perhaps trying to 
work with the MTBE producers to help them through this transition if, 
in fact, MTBE is banned. I certainly am willing to work with them to 
come up with some solution, some help in terms of their movement from 
one industry to another, or whatever the case may be.
  Finally, the bill authorizes a comprehensive study of the 
environmental consequences of our current fuel supply. In order to be 
better informed to make future environmental decisions regarding fuel 
policy, the bill directs EPA to undertake a study of our motor fuel.
  I will talk a little bit about the cost, a very important point.
  Lately, we have heard a great deal about gasoline prices, certainly 
fuel oil prices, as well, in New England. These concerns underscore the 
question of the costs associated with limiting MTBE use.
  MTBE, like it or not, is clean, it is cheap, and it helps to clean up 
our air. Placing it in our fuel supply and keeping the fuel supply 
clean will have a cost. We have to replace it. We cannot backslide. We 
do not want to dirty the air while we take MTBE out.
  It is my belief the Senate is not prepared to reduce our clean air 
standards or allow for the continued contamination of our drinking 
water.
  We have two issues: Contaminated drinking water and do we backslide 
off the clean air provision. I believe my colleagues in the Senate are 
willing to work with me to clean up the water to get the MTBE out of 
our wells and to preserve the integrity of the Clean Air Act and not 
backslide or move back from the cleaner air we have accomplished by 
using MTBE.
  The question, though, becomes: What is the most effective and cost 
friendly option for achieving this goal? I have a chart which will help 
illustrate the options. Each one of these options--the red line, yellow 
line, green line, and the blue line--bans MTBE, but it is a little more 
complicated than that.
  One option is simply the elimination of MTBE with no other changes in 
the law. That is the red line. These show costs. This is the highest 
cost option because it is about an 8-cent increase in gas prices per 
gallon. This is a ban of MTBE, and it replaces it with ethanol in the 
Reformulated Gas Program. One might think: That is fine, it is ethanol, 
produced by corn, a nice natural product; what is wrong with that? 
Let's do it.
  The problem is, in areas in the Northeast, such as New Hampshire, and 
in other States such as Texas, these States would have to use ethanol 
to meet that oxygenate requirement because there is no other option. In 
order to meet the 2-percent oxygenate requirement if MTBE is removed, 
they have to use ethanol.
  One may say: What is wrong with that? Ethanol makes gas evaporate 
more quickly and those fumes would add to smog and haze in New England 
and it would be serious. Obviously, California would have the same 
problem.
  Refiners would have to make gas less evaporative and thereby 
increasing the cost. In other words, they would have to do something to 
deal with that rapid evaporation and it would cost more to do that. 
This is not an option for New England nor California nor any other 
State that has this particular problem.
  If we are going to be responsible, then we should work with our 
colleagues who have these problems. I happen to have that problem 
because I am from New Hampshire, and as the chairman of the committee, 
I need to work with all regions of the country to get a compromise that 
is acceptable to everybody so that we do not have more environmental 
problems in New England or California or some other place by simply 
banning MTBE and letting ethanol take over. Some want that.
  Obviously, the ethanol producers would love it, but that does not 
help us. We do not want to create more problems. That is not a 
responsible approach, I say with all due respect.
  The next line is the orange line in terms of cost.
  That is the Clinton administration's position. That represents the 
cost of eliminating the oxygen mandate, but replacing it with a 
national ethanol mandate. You have no other alternative other than 
ethanol.
  The cost of mandating a threefold increase in ethanol sales is very 
expensive. So the options represented by the orange line shown on the 
chart cost less than what is shown with the red line because it does 
not mandate that the reformulated gas contain ethanol. It does not 
mandate it, but that is what is going to happen. But, shown with this 
orange line on the chart, it simply mandates the total ethanol market. 
So you are mandating the market here, and that is no good. That does 
not work. Unlike what is shown with the red line, there would be no 
regional constraint. It would not be acceptable.
  Now, what is shown on the chart with the blue line is legislation 
that I am introducing today, without the amendment initially. In my 
view, that is the cheapest and most responsible way to deal with this 
problem. However, for reasons which I respect--I might not agree with 
them, but I respect them--it does not have enough support, either, to 
pass the Senate. I recognize that, but I want everybody to know where I 
am coming from.
  I believe we should use the cheapest alternative that gets the job 
done. That is my view. But I understand, as I said before, I am willing 
to build that bridge to go from what is shown with the blue line to 
what is shown with the green line. I will not go to what is shown with 
the orange or red lines, but I am willing to go from what is shown with 
the blue line to what is shown with the green line.
  As I have said, what is shown with the blue line is the bill I have 
introduced. That bill will cost more to make clean gas without MTBE, 
but because we place the fewest requirements on the refiners on how to 
achieve that clean gas, this bill would cost the economy less than all 
other options. It is very important for me to repeat that. We place the 
fewest requirements on the refiners on how to achieve the clean gas. We 
want clean gas achieved. That is the goal. This bill would cost the 
economy less than all of those other options.
  While my bill addresses all of the concerns with MTBE, I am also 
sensitive to the concerns of the Senators who understand that this bill 
might have an impact on ethanol. So in order to address these concerns, 
I have prepared an amendment to my own legislation, amendment No. 4026, 
which I have already sent to the desk.
  This amendment seeks to address the concerns over ethanol that 
Members have. I am hoping that over the course of the next 30 days we 
will be able to build this bridge from what is shown by the blue line 
to what is shown by the

[[Page S7853]]

green line, to get to what I think is an acceptable and responsible 
approach.
  I indicated earlier there is a lot of interest. Thirty-two States 
have expressed interest in this, in my letter. This amendment seeks to 
address the concerns of the ethanol industry by establishing a segment 
of the fuel market that must be comprised of either ethanol or fuel 
used to power superclean vehicles.
  About 10 days ago, I had the opportunity to ride in a fuel-celled 
bus. It had hydrogen cells. I had never experienced anything like it: 
No fumes, no smell, very little sound, and no pollutants whatsoever. I 
road several miles in it.

  The current occupant of the Chair, the Senator from Utah, Senator 
Bennett, drives a hybrid car which is part electric, part gas. You see, 
we are moving in the right direction. Hybrid cars, fuel cells--they are 
the future. The more we do that, the less we need of any type of 
gasoline, whether it is ethanol or just oil based. It does not matter.
  The point is, we are moving in the right direction. That is what we 
want to encourage. This bill will establish a segment of the fuel 
market that must be comprised of either ethanol or fuel used to power 
those clean vehicles. We do not want to stop them from having that 
option.
  If we just go with the renewables that the administration wants, all 
they can use is ethanol. What we want them to do is use ethanol, if 
they wish, but to use hybrid cars if they wish. Encourage that, 
encourage fuel cells, whatever, or premium gas, but let the market deal 
with it.
  So there are a lot of exciting things happening. This amendment is 
going to create competition. There is nothing wrong with competition, 
good old competition. You pick winners and losers--no guarantees--with 
competition between the ethanol industry and the clean vehicle market. 
So why mandate ethanol and exclude clean vehicles? It does not make any 
sense.
  So the estimated cost of this approach is represented by the green 
line on the chart. This is a very good approach that I believe is a 
compromise that gets us there. It costs us a little more, but it gets 
us there. Because we can't get there with what is represented by the 
blue line, I am willing to go here, with what is represented by the 
green line.
  Mr. President, I know my time is pretty close to expiring, I am sure.
  To those who will ask, why does this have to be so complicated, I did 
not create the issue. I have spent the last 6 months trying to 
understand it and learn about it. I think I am getting there, with a 
lot of help. It is a complex issue, with many competing interests. That 
is the thing. But a simple ban of MTBE does not get everybody there--
all the regions of the country. It does not get it done.
  So a simple ban of MTBE makes gas more expensive and air more dirty. 
It is not acceptable. We cannot do that. A stand-alone mandate of 
ethanol does not get you there, either. Smog concerns, cost concerns--
particularly in New Hampshire, and other areas of the Northeast, as 
well as California--that does not get you there.
  Simply eliminating the reformulated gas mandate does not work, 
either. That is another option. MTBE would continue to be used and the 
potential adverse impact on ethanol would be there.
  I am committed, I say to my colleagues, to a solution that, one, 
cleans up our Nation's drinking water, and, two, preserves the 
environmental benefits of the reformulated gasoline program, which is 
the most cost-effective option for the whole Nation. And that is shown 
right there with the green line. That is the one we can get it done 
with. I wish it were here with what is depicted with the blue line, but 
this will get us there with what is depicted with the green line; and 
we will do it.
  So I am convinced this is the right approach. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues. This is an honest attempt to sit down with 
everybody and get to a resolution, because to continue to argue about 
this and debate this, while more and more wells every day get polluted 
with MTBE, is irresponsible. It is totally irresponsible.

  We should not be talking about somebody's profit at the expense of 
somebody's well being polluted. Let's compromise. We will work with 
you. You can make some profit, but you are not going to make so much 
profit that we have to stand around and have our wells polluted. That 
is simply wrong. It is unacceptable. It is irresponsible. I am not 
going to stand for it. I don't think anybody would who had these kinds 
of problems. It is irresponsible. So we are going to work together.
  I am very encouraged by the folks, especially the ethanol Senators, 
who I have talked with, and their staffs. We have talked to folks in 
the oil industry. They are not real thrilled about some of this, but, 
again, this is a solution that we must find. We cannot continue to say 
we will talk about it next week or we will deal with it in conference 
or we will deal with it next year. We need to deal with it now. This is 
a responsible effort to do that.
  So, again, I look forward to working with my colleagues, and I look 
forward to that markup on September 7. I intend to be ready for it, and 
to send that bill out of the EPW Committee and on to the calendar in 
the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2962

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Reformulated Fuels 
     Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. WAIVER OF OXYGEN CONTENT REQUIREMENT FOR REFORMULATED 
                   GASOLINE.

       Section 211(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7545(k)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Within 1 year after the enactment of the 
     Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than November 15, 1991,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Waiver of oxygen content requirement.--
       ``(i) Authority of the governor.--

       ``(I) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subsection, a Governor of a State, upon notification by 
     the Governor to the Administrator during the 90-day period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this subparagraph, may 
     waive the application of paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(A)(v) to 
     gasoline sold or dispensed in the State.
       ``(II) Opt-in areas.--A Governor of a State that submits an 
     application under paragraph (6) may, as part of that 
     application, waive the application of paragraphs (2)(B) and 
     (3)(A)(v) to gasoline sold or dispensed in the State.

       ``(ii) Treatment as reformulated gasoline.--In the case of 
     a State for which the Governor invokes the waiver described 
     in clause (i), gasoline that complies with all provisions of 
     this subsection other than paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(A)(v) 
     shall be considered to be reformulated gasoline for the 
     purposes of this subsection.
       ``(iii) Effective date of waiver.--A waiver under clause 
     (i) shall take effect on the earlier of--

       ``(I) the date on which the performance standard under 
     subparagraph (C) takes effect; or
       ``(II) the date that is 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph.

       ``(C) Maintenance of toxic air pollutant emission 
     reductions.--
       ``(i) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph, the Administrator shall--

       ``(I) promulgate regulations consistent with subparagraph 
     (A) and paragraph (3)(B)(ii) to ensure that reductions of 
     toxic air pollutant emissions achieved under the reformulated 
     gasoline program under this section before the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph are maintained in States for 
     which the Governor waives the oxygenate requirement under 
     subparagraph (B)(i); or
       ``(II) determine that the requirement described in clause 
     (iv)--

       ``(aa) is consistent with the bases for a performance 
     standard described in clause (ii); and
       ``(bb) shall be deemed to be the performance standard under 
     clause (ii) and shall be applied in accordance with clause 
     (iii).
       ``(ii) Performance standard.--The Administrator, in 
     regulations promulgated under clause (i)(I), shall establish 
     an annual average performance standard based on--

       ``(I) compliance survey data;
       ``(II) the annual aggregate reductions in emissions of 
     toxic air pollutants achieved under the reformulated gasoline 
     program during calendar years 1998 and 1999, determined on 
     the basis of the volume of reformulated gasoline containing 
     methyl tertiary butyl ether that is sold throughout the 
     United States; and
       ``(III) such other information as the Administrator 
     determines to be appropriate.

       ``(iii) Applicability.--

       ``(I) In general.--The performance standard under clause 
     (ii) shall be applied on an annual average refinery-by-
     refinery basis to all reformulated gasoline that is sold or 
     introduced into commerce by the refinery in a

[[Page S7854]]

     State for which the Governor waives the oxygenate requirement 
     under subparagraph (B)(i).
       ``(II) More stringent requirements.--The performance 
     standard under clause (ii) shall not apply to the extent that 
     any requirement under section 202(l) is more stringent than 
     the performance standard.
       ``(III) State standards.--The performance standard under 
     clause (ii) shall not apply in any State that has received a 
     waiver under section 209(b).
       ``(IV) Credit program.--The Administrator shall provide for 
     the granting of credits for exceeding the performance 
     standard under clause (ii) in the same manner as provided in 
     paragraph (7).

       ``(iv) Statutory performance standard.--

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (III), if the 
     regulations under clause (i)(I) have not been promulgated by 
     the date that is 270 days after the date of enactment of this 
     subparagraph, the requirement described in subclause (II) 
     shall be deemed to be the performance standard under clause 
     (ii) and shall be applied in accordance with clause (iii).
       ``(II) Toxic air pollutant emissions.--The aggregate 
     emissions of toxic air pollutants from baseline vehicles when 
     using reformulated gasoline shall be 27.5 percent below the 
     aggregate emissions of toxic air pollutants from baseline 
     vehicles when using baseline gasoline.
       ``(III) Subsequent regulations.--The Administrator may 
     modify the performance standard established under subclause 
     (I) through promulgation of regulations under clause 
     (i)(I).''.

     SEC. 3. SALE OF GASOLINE CONTAINING MTBE.

       Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by inserting ``fuel or fuel additive or'' after 
     ``Administrator any''; and
       (B) by striking ``air pollution which'' and inserting ``air 
     pollution, or water pollution, that'';
       (2) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting ``or water quality 
     protection,'' after ``emission control,''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Determination by the administrator whether to ban use 
     of mtbe.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall ban use 
     of methyl tertiary butyl ether in gasoline unless the 
     Administrator determines that the use of methyl tertiary 
     butyl ether in accordance with paragraph (6) poses no 
     substantial risk to water quality, air quality, or human 
     health.
       ``(B) Regulations concerning phase-out.--The Administrator 
     may establish by regulation a schedule to phase out the use 
     of methyl tertiary butyl ether in gasoline during the period 
     preceding the effective date of the ban under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(6) Limitations on sale of gasoline containing mtbe.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), if the 
     Administrator makes the determination described in paragraph 
     (5), for the fourth full calendar year that begins after the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph and each calendar year 
     thereafter--
       ``(i) the quantity of gasoline sold or introduced into 
     commerce during the calendar year by a refiner, blender, or 
     importer of gasoline shall contain on average not more than 1 
     percent by volume methyl tertiary butyl ether; and
       ``(ii) no person shall sell or introduce into commerce any 
     gasoline that contains more than a specified percentage by 
     volume methyl tertiary butyl ether, as determined by the 
     Administrator by regulation.
       ``(B) Regulations concerning trading.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator may promulgate 
     regulations that provide for the granting of an appropriate 
     amount of credits to a person that refines, blends, or 
     imports, and certifies to the Administrator, gasoline or a 
     slate of gasoline that has a methyl tertiary butyl ether 
     content that is less than the maximum methyl tertiary butyl 
     ether content specified in subparagraph (A)(i).
       ``(ii) Use of credits.--The regulations promulgated under 
     clause (i) shall provide that a person that is granted 
     credits may use the credits, or transfer all or a portion of 
     the credits to another person, for the purpose of complying 
     with the maximum methyl tertiary butyl ether content 
     requirement specified in subparagraph (A)(i).
       ``(iii) Maximum annual limitation.--The regulations 
     promulgated under clause (i) shall ensure that the total 
     quantity of gasoline sold or introduced into commerce during 
     any calendar year by all refiners, blenders, or importers 
     contains on average not more than 1 percent by volume methyl 
     tertiary butyl ether.
       ``(C) Temporary waiver of limitations.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy, finds, on the Administrator's 
     own motion or on petition of any person, that there is an 
     insufficient domestic capacity to produce or import gasoline, 
     the Administrator may, in accordance with section 307, 
     temporarily waive the limitations imposed under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(ii) Duration of reduction.--

       ``(I) In general.--A waiver under clause (i) shall remain 
     in effect for a period of 15 days unless the Administrator, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, finds, before 
     the end of that period, that there is sufficient domestic 
     capacity to produce or import gasoline.
       ``(II) Extension.--Upon the expiration of the 15-day period 
     under subclause (I), the waiver may be extended for an 
     additional 15-day period in accordance with clause (i).

       ``(iii) Deadline for action on petitions.--The 
     Administrator shall act on any petition submitted under 
     clause (i) within 7 days after the date of receipt of the 
     petition.
       ``(iv) Inapplicability of certain requirements.--Section 
     307(d) of this Act and sections 553 through 557 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall not apply to any action on a 
     petition submitted under clause (i).
       ``(v) State authority.--At the option of a State, a waiver 
     under clause (i) shall not apply to any area with respect to 
     which the State has exercised authority under any other 
     provision of law (including subparagraph (D)) to limit the 
     sale or use of methyl tertiary butyl ether.
       ``(D) State petitions to eliminate use of mtbe.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State may submit to the Administrator 
     a petition requesting authority to eliminate the use of 
     methyl tertiary butyl ether in gasoline sold or introduced 
     into commerce in the State in order to protect air quality, 
     water quality, or human health.
       ``(ii) Deadline for action on petitions.--The Administrator 
     shall grant or deny any petition submitted under clause (i) 
     within 180 days after the date of receipt of the petition.''.

     SEC. 4. CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE.

       (a) In General.--Section 211(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7545(k)(1)) (as amended by section 2) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Conventional gasoline.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2007--

       ``(I) the Administrator shall determine whether the use of 
     conventional gasoline during the period of calendar years 
     2005 and 2006 resulted in a greater volume of emissions of 
     criteria air pollutants listed under section 108, and 
     precursors of those pollutants, determined on the basis of a 
     weighted average of those pollutants and precursors, than the 
     volume of such emissions during the period of calendar years 
     1998 and 1999; and
       ``(II) if the Administrator determines that a significant 
     increase in emissions occurred, the Administrator shall 
     promulgate such regulations concerning the use of 
     conventional gasoline as are appropriate to eliminate that 
     increase.

       ``(ii) Applicability to certain states.--The Administrator 
     shall make the determination under clause (i)(I) without 
     regard to, and the regulations promulgated under clause 
     (i)(II) shall not apply to, any State that has received a 
     waiver under section 209(b).''.
       (b) Elimination of Ethanol Waiver.--Section 211(h) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(h)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4).

     SEC. 5. PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FUELS AND 
                   FUEL ADDITIVES.

       Section 211(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7545(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``may also'' and inserting ``shall, on a 
     regular basis,''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) to conduct tests to determine potential public health 
     and environmental effects of the fuel or additive (including 
     carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic effects); and''.

     SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE FUEL STUDY.

       Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following:
       ``(o) Comprehensive Fuel Study.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph and every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report--
       ``(A) describing reductions in emissions of criteria air 
     pollutants listed under section 108, or precursors of those 
     pollutants, that result from implementation of this section;
       ``(B) describing reductions in emissions of toxic air 
     pollutants that result from implementation of this section;
       ``(C) in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, 
     describing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that result 
     from implementation of this section; and
       ``(D)(i) describing regulatory options to achieve 
     reductions in the risk to public health and the environment 
     posed by fuels and fuel additives--
       ``(I) taking into account the production, handling, and 
     consumption of the fuels and fuel additives; and
       ``(II) focusing on options that reduce the use of compounds 
     or associated emission products that pose the greatest risk; 
     and
       ``(ii) making recommendations concerning any statutory 
     changes necessary to implement the regulatory options 
     described under clause (i).
       ``(2) Life cycle emissions analysis.--In determining 
     criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emission reductions 
     under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall take into 
     account the emissions resulting from the various fuels and 
     fuel additives used in the

[[Page S7855]]

     implementation of this section over the entire life cycle of 
     the fuels and fuel additives.''.

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL OPT-IN AREAS UNDER REFORMULATED GASOLINE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7545(k)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(6) Opt-in areas.--(A) Upon'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(6) Opt-in areas.--
       ``(A) Classified areas.--
       ``(i) In general.--Upon'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) If'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Effect of insufficient domestic capacity to produce 
     reformulated gasoline.--If'';
       (3) in subparagraph (A)(ii) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' 
     and inserting ``clause (i)''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``this paragraph'' 
     and inserting ``this subparagraph''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Nonclassified areas.--
       ``(i) In general.--In accordance with section 110, a State 
     may submit to the Administrator, and the Administrator may 
     approve, a State implementation plan revision that provides 
     for application of the prohibition specified in paragraph (5) 
     in any portion of the State that is not a covered area or an 
     area referred to in subparagraph (A)(i).
       ``(ii) Period of effectiveness.--Under clause (i), the 
     State implementation plan shall establish a period of 
     effectiveness for applying the prohibition specified in 
     paragraph (5) to a portion of a State that--

       ``(I) commences not later than 1 year after the date of 
     approval by the Administrator of the State implementation 
     plan; and
       ``(II) ends not earlier than 4 years after the date of 
     commencement under subclause (I).''.

     SEC. 8. LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.

       (a) Use of LUST Funds for Remediation of MTBE 
     Contamination.--Section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7)(A), by striking ``paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of this subsection,'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (12),''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Remediation of mtbe contamination.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator and the States may use 
     funds made available under subparagraph (B) to carry out 
     corrective actions with respect to a release of methyl 
     tertiary butyl ether that presents a risk to human health, 
     welfare, or the environment.
       ``(B) Applicable authority.--Subparagraph (A) shall be 
     carried out--
       ``(i) in accordance with paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) in the case of a State, in a manner consistent with 
     a cooperative agreement entered into by the Administrator and 
     the State under paragraph (7).
       ``(C) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
     Trust Fund to carry out subparagraph (A) $200,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001, to remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Release Prevention.--Subtitle I of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 9010 as section 9011; and
       (2) by inserting after section 9009 the following:

     ``SEC. 9010. RELEASE PREVENTION.

       ``(a) Implementation of Preventative Measures.--The 
     Administrator (or a State pursuant to section 9003(h)(7)) may 
     use funds appropriated from the Leaking Underground Storage 
     Tank Trust Fund for--
       ``(1) necessary expenses directly related to the 
     implementation of section 9003(h);
       ``(2) enforcement of--
       ``(A) this subtitle;
       ``(B) a State program approved under section 9004; or
       ``(C) State requirements regulating underground storage 
     tanks that are similar or identical to this subtitle; and
       ``(3) inspection of underground storage tanks.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated from the Leaking Underground 
     Storage Tank Trust Fund to carry out subsection (a)--
       ``(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(2) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2005.''.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     prec. 6901) is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 9010 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 9010. Release prevention.
``Sec. 9011. Authorization of appropriations.''.

       (2) Section 9001(3)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6991(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``sustances'' and 
     inserting ``substances''.
       (3) Section 9003(f)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6991b(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``subsection (c) 
     and (d) of this section'' and inserting ``subsections (c) and 
     (d)''.
       (4) Section 9004(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6991c(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
     ``referred to'' and all that follows and inserting ``referred 
     to in subparagraph (A) or (B), or both, of section 
     9001(2).''.
       (5) Section 9005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6991d) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``study taking'' and 
     inserting ``study, taking'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``relevent'' and 
     inserting ``relevant''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``Evironmental'' and 
     inserting ``Environmental''.
                                 ______