[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5443-S5446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        SOLUTION TO MTBE PROBLEM

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, by now, most everyone in 
the Nation has heard of the problems caused by MTBE (methyl tertiary 
butyl ether). I am very pleased that S. 950, the Federal Reformulated 
Fuels Act of 2002, reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works, has largely been incorporated into the Senate energy 
bill, S. 517, passed by the Senate on April 25, 2002. I would like to 
thank all those who worked with me to negotiate this comprehensive 
solution to the MTBE problem.
  The legislative package provides Federal funding for cleanup of 
existing contamination and for prevention of future releases of MTBE, 
while preserving the environment and protecting the country from 
gasoline price spikes and fuel shortages. I would like to engage in a 
brief colloquy with the chairman of the committee so that we can 
provide an overview of the problems caused by MTBE and how this 
legislation solves these problems.
  The problem that initially motivated the committee and the Senate to 
act on S. 950 and this issue in general is the existing MTBE 
contamination of water resources. Leaking underground storage tanks 
(USTs) are the major source of MTBE releases. Section 832 of this 
legislation authorizes $200 million from the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund for States to use for MTBE remediation. 
For this limited allocation of funds, the legislation waives the LUST 
requirement that the contamination be linked to an UST. Once in the 
environment, MTBE separates from other gasoline components and can 
quickly move far away from the source. Since MTBE contamination is 
difficult to trace, it is nearly impossible to establish a link between 
the contamination and a LUST.
  In addition to cleaning up existing contamination, we must prevent 
future leaks from USTs because MTBE, in volumes much lower than current 
levels found in reformulated gasoline (RFG), may remain in gasoline for 
up to four years of enactment of this bill. To prevent future leaks, 
Section 832 of this legislation authorizes an additional $200 million 
from the LUST Trust Fund for States to use for activities to enforce 
existing UST regulations.
  There is still more to learn about remediation of MTBE. Section 832 
of this legislation authorizes $2 million for conducting bedrock 
bioremediation research and establishing an information clearinghouse. 
These authorized funds are intended to go to the Bedrock Bioremediation 
Center (BBC) at the University of New Hampshire. Currently, the BBC 
conducts research on bioremediation of various contaminants in 
fractured bedrock. This additional funding will allow the BBC to learn 
ways of cleaning up MTBE contamination in fractured bedrock and 
establish an information clearinghouse so that the newly developed 
remediation techniques may be shared across the nation. Once MTBE 
enters fractured bedrock, it is nearly impossible to remediate and 
equally as difficult to track. MTBE may contaminate wells that are many 
miles away from the original source. In simple terms, we can't get it 
out of bedrock and we can't tell where it will cause problems.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. As the Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member 
on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has pointed out, the 
committee acted to address existing contamination and to prevent future 
contamination. There are many sources of MTBE releases, including 
leaking underground storage tanks, motor vehicle accidents, fuel 
overfills, backyard mechanics and many more. With the numerous 
potential sources, the only way to ensure prevention of future 
contamination is to get MTBE out of gasoline. This legislation contains 
several provisions that work together to provide for quick reduction 
and eventual elimination of MTBE use in gasoline.
  Section 834 eliminates the oxygen content requirement in Sections 
211(k)(2) and 211(k)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act. These provisions 
require RFG to contain two percent oxygen by weight. To satisfy this 
mandate, refiners must blend either fourteen percent MTBE or 5 percent 
ethanol into RFG. Elimination of the oxygen mandate will allow for a 
phase-down of the use of MTBE in RFG without requiring the use of 
ethanol in every gallon of RFG in certain non-attainment areas. But, 
RFG will still be required to meet all other statutory and regulatory 
requirements.
  The elimination of the oxygen requirement also will allow refiners 
supplying RFG to the Northeast and many other States to use 
considerably less MTBE in RFG prior to the beginning of the phase out. 
MTBE is currently 3 percent of the national gasoline supply. Most of 
this is used in RFG areas, where MTBE volume in RFG is up to 15 
percent.
  The oxygen requirement is eliminated effective 270 days after 
enactment in order to provide time for EPA to put in place the anti-
backsliding provisions included under Section 834 of this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. In addition to elimination of the oxygen 
mandate, as the Senator from Vermont has indicated, this legislation 
requires EPA to make a determination about the adequacy of any pending 
RFG petition to waive the oxygen content requirements of section 
211(k)(2)(B) for RFG. If EPA fails to act in the required time, the 
petition shall be deemed approved. Although this includes an opt-out or 
other request, EPA's failure to act results in automatic approval of 
the petition only to the extent that the oxygen content requirement for 
RFG would be waived. No other RFG requirements are affected. This 
provision only applies to petitions pending at the time of enactment of 
this provision.

[[Page S5444]]

  The State of New Hampshire submitted to EPA a request to opt-out of 
the RFG program and set state fuel standards that are identical to the 
Federal RFG specifications, excluding the oxygen mandate. The EPA is 
instructed to interpret the New Hampshire RFG opt-out request as a 
request to eliminate the oxygen mandate. If the request is deemed 
adequate, either by EPA or by statute, the RFG sold and used in New 
Hampshire will not be required to adhere to the oxygen content 
requirement, effective immediately upon the adequacy determination.
  The removal of the oxygenate requirement alone, however, is not 
enough to ensure the removal of MTBE from gasoline. Therefore, Section 
833 of this legislation contains a provision that prohibits the 
blending of MTBE in gasoline within 4 years of enactment. The 4-year 
period is intended to allow fuel refiners to phase out the use of MTBE 
on a schedule that will not cause gasoline shortages or price spikes. 
The absence of a mandatory statutory phase down schedule is intended to 
give maximum flexibility to fuel refiners as they proceed to an MTBE-
free gasoline supply.
  The reference to use of MTBE in new section 211(c)(5)(A) of the Clean 
Air Act is meant to cover use by all persons. It includes all persons 
in the motor vehicle fuel production and distribution system, as well 
as ultimate consumer of the fuel and producers of MTBE. EPA's 
regulation may include appropriate provisions to implement this 
prohibition.
  The findings listed in this section are intended to clarify that the 
elimination of the use of MTBE is intended to protect water quality. It 
is important to note that health concerns are not the main cause for 
Congressional action, based on information to date.
  There is an allowance for de minimus amounts of MTBE to be present in 
gasoline because MTBE is sometimes produced in trace amounts during the 
gasoline production process. The Administrator will make a 
determination on what level is appropriate, but the legislation 
provides that it can be no more than .5 percent by volume.
  Another provision gives States the authority to allow the use of MTBE 
in gasoline for sale and use within such State's borders. This 
provision is intended to allow a State to use MTBE should the State 
determine that other problems, such as increased air pollution, price 
spikes, or fuel supply shortages, outweigh any adverse impact MTBE may 
have on water quality. The regulations implementing this provision 
could allow production and distribution in other States for intended 
ultimate use in the notifying State, with appropriate safeguards to 
ensure that the fuel containing MTBE ultimately is only sold or used in 
the notifying State. Such rules, however, should not authorize 
production or use in a state that has banned MTBE and does not want it 
stored or handled there for fear of water supply contamination.
  Section 833(d) is intended to hold harmless any legal recourse that 
the States may have during the on-going litigation over the efforts to 
impose or defend state MTBE bans or other legitimate actions to control 
or prohibit MTBE use or production.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator has stated the essential point of this 
legislation and these provisions in the energy bill, that is the 
elimination of MTBE to protect water supplies. Its removal from the 
gasoline supply could encourage the replacement of fuel volumes with 
more toxic components, so section 834 of this legislation requires EPA 
to ensure maintenance of the toxics reduction over-compliance already 
achieved in RFG areas. EPA may comply with this requirement by amending 
the existing Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rule by updating the 
individual refinery RFG baselines from 1998-2000 to 1999-2000, and 
whatever other appropriate changes are necessary. We are advised by the 
Agency that any such changes should be minimal.
  The MSAT rule currently makes a distinction between baseline volume, 
the average volume produced during the years 1998-2000, and incremental 
volume, or additional volume above baseline volume. These categories 
are treated differently under the rule and under this legislation. 
Under the rule, baseline volumes must adhere to new toxic reduction 
standards based on actual survey data from 1998-2000 and incremental 
volumes are held to the statutory or regulatory reduction, whichever 
apply. Under this legislation, the baseline volumes must adhere to the 
updated toxic reduction standard based on actual survey data from 1999-
2000. Incremental volumes are treated the same as under the rule unless 
the actual toxics levels in any PADD exceed the average 1999-2000 
levels. If there is an exceedance, EPA must revise the existing 
regulation to require incremental volumes of RFG, in addition to 
baseline volumes, to adhere to the updated individual refinery 
baselines.

  The RFG program set statutory content and performance requirements. 
Through regulatory authority provided by the Clean Air Act, EPA chose, 
in 1993, to adopt performance standards for toxic air pollutants and 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) rather than the prescriptive fuels 
formula allowed under Section 211(k)(3)(A). These performance standards 
required a 15 percent reduction in toxic air pollutants from baseline 
fuel starting in 1995 and maintained through 1999, and required a 21.5 
percent reduction from baseline fuel beginning in 2000, as part of 
Phase II.
  Motor vehicle emissions of toxics have been drastically reduced in 
RFG areas, though they are still a very substantial portion of the air 
toxics inventory in many areas. Over-compliance with the toxics 
reduction goals in the Clean Air Act has been largely due to the 
dilution effect of the oxygenates MTBE and ethanol, relatively toxic-
free additives. RFG survey data suggest that refiners have achieved a 
27 percent or higher reduction in toxic air pollutants from the 1990 
baseline.
  On March 29, 2001, EPA released a final strategy to further reduce 
air toxics emissions from motor fuels in an effort to comply with its 
responsibility under Section 202(l) of the Act. The strategy identified 
21 mobile source air toxics (MSATs). It is intended to ensure that 
refiners continue over-compliance with RFG and anti-dumping 
requirements by maintaining their average 1998-2000 toxic emissions 
performance levels for baseline volumes of RFG and conventional 
gasoline. For incremental volumes, refiners must adhere to the 
regulatory standard of a 21.5 percent reduction. The MSAT rule is 
intended to ensure that toxics over-compliance is maintained regardless 
of whether any oxygenates are used. The MSAT rule commits EPA to 
revisiting additional fuel and vehicle MSATs controls in a 2004 
rulemaking.
  Section 834(b) supplements the air toxics provisions for RFG. 
Congress recognizes that EPA recently adopted regulations at 40 CFR 
part 80 Subpart J regarding air toxics performance of gasoline, 
including provisions for RFG. Congress intends that the regulations 
recently adopted by EPA are adequate to implement new section 
211(k)(1)(B)(ii) and (iii), with the exception of the change in 
baseline year from 1998-2000 to 1999-2000 and any resulting baseline 
changes that may necessitate. The provisions in the current regulations 
for setting baselines, baseline adjustments, deficit carry-over, and 
the like should still all be appropriate under this new provision. 
While new baseline adjustments would not be allowed based solely on the 
new provision, prior baseline adjustments would not be affected, except 
as called for with the change in the baseline years. For example, the 
existence of a federal ban on MTBE would not automatically change any 
previously granted adjustments, and would not provide grounds for any 
new adjustments.
  I would note that there is not wholehearted support for the MSAT rule 
at 40 CFR part 80 subpart J in Congress or in the States. The Northeast 
States for Coordinated Air Use Management has filed suit against the 
Agency claiming that this rule is inadequate to protect public health 
in the Northeast and inconsistent with the requirements in section 
202(l) of the Clean Air Act. So, we have included a savings clause to 
be very clear that Congress has not blessed this rule through the 
inclusion of these anti-backsliding provisions.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the existing RFG 
regulations set separate standards for fuel sold in Northern and 
Southern RFG areas. Section 839 of the legislation we are discussing 
requires EPA to revise

[[Page S5445]]

existing RFG regulations to apply the stricter Southern requirements in 
all RFG areas nationwide. This will provide the Northern RFG States, 
including New Hampshire, with less-polluting Southern RFG. In addition, 
this provision will help to reduce the number of boutique fuels. This 
provision does not alter the Administrator's current ability to make 
volatile organic compound (VOC) adjustments for ethanol blends of RFG, 
like the existing adjustment given to Chicago and Milwaukee.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Because of that change and the other congressional 
actions on MTBE and renewable fuels, there are likely to be significant 
changes in the Nation's gasoline characteristics. Section 836 of this 
legislation requires EPA to study and report on the changes in 
emissions of air pollutants and changes in overall air quality due to 
the use of fuels and fuel additives resulting from this bill. This 
report will provide information to evaluate the success of the 
provisions of this legislation and should help identify problems that 
can be solved by statute or regulation before they are serious.
  Section 211(c) of the CAA provides the Administrator with regulatory 
authority over fuels or fuel additives, if, in the judgment of the 
Administrator, the fuels or fuel additives or emission products cause 
or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger the public health or welfare. This legislation adds authority 
to protect water quality, in addition to air quality. The bill requires 
the Administrator to exercise this regulatory authority to prohibit the 
use of MTBE. The bill also adds water quality as an environmental 
protection criterion in Title II of the act.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. To address the inflexibility of the opt-
in process for states that desire to use RFG to reduce emissions, 
section 837 of the Energy bill allows Governors of States within the 
Ozone Transport Region (OTR), to opt in any area to the RFG program. 
EPA must approve the request unless there is insufficient capacity to 
supply RFG to the area. Currently, only ozone nonattainment areas are 
allowed to opt in to the program. This legislation expands the program 
to include all areas within the OTR States. This will give those 
states, including New Hampshire, the opportunity to have one clean, 
MTBE-free RFG statewide. This provision is intended to provide cleaner 
fuel, address the boutique fuel problem, and help states achieve 
attainment.
  The section addresses both the commencement and termination of the 
RFG requirements in areas in the OTR that opt-in to RFG under that 
provision. The provision on termination of the RFG program in these 
opt-in areas is not intended to change or modify in any way EPA's 
authority to adopt reasonable opt-out provisions under either section 
211(k)(6)(A) or (B).
  This section includes a provision that allows a temporary delay of 
the effective date of these requirements if there is insufficient 
capacity to supply gasoline to a State that chooses to opt in new areas 
to the RFG program. If EPA, in consultation with the Department of 
Energy, determines that expansion of the RFG program would result in 
insufficient supply of gasoline in the State, the effective date of the 
new opt-in areas may be delayed for a period of up to one year with the 
possibility of two more periods of up to one year each.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Section 838 of the legislation allows States to ask EPA 
to enforce any state-imposed fuel specifications that have been 
approved under processes established under Section 110 or Section 
211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act. Effective and consistent enforcement 
of State and federal environmental laws is very important. States 
currently have very limited budgets for enforcement activities. To 
ensure full, faithful, and consistent enforcement of the state laws, 
this provision provides the ability for States to access additional 
federal resources for enforcement of state fuel specifications, once 
approved by EPA through the existing processes.
  The section directs EPA to enforce certain state fuel controls or 
prohibitions in the same manner as if EPA had adopted the control or 
prohibition under section 211. This new provision is not intended to 
change in any way the requirements for approval of a State fuel control 
or prohibition in a SIP, including the requirement that it be 
enforceable by the state. It is also not intended to limit EPA's 
enforcement discretion. EPA would have the same discretion in 
enforcement matters with respect to these state fuel controls or 
prohibition as it would with a federal fuel control or prohibition 
adopted under section 211.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. To avert air quality problems that might 
arise through increased use of ethanol, pursuant to the renewable fuels 
requirements, section 819(c) of the legislation allows States to 
eliminate the RVP waiver for gasohol if such waiver will increase air 
pollution in any area within the State. If a state determines the 
waiver will cause air quality problems, the State may submit 
notification, accompanied by supporting documentation, to EPA 
indicating that the stricter RVP limit must be applied to gasohol 
within the state. This provision will help new ethanol using states to 
control evaporative air pollution emissions from gasohol.
  This section includes a provision that establishes a temporary delay 
of the effective date of these requirements if there is insufficient 
capacity to supply gasoline to a State that chooses to eliminate the 
ethanol RVP waiver. If EPA, after consultation with the Department of 
Energy, determines that elimination of such waiver would result in an 
insufficient supply of gasoline in the State, refiners may be allowed 
to retain the ethanol RVP waiver for a period of up to 1 year with the 
possibility of two more periods of up to 1 year each.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. In order to prevent future problems similar to the MTBE 
debacle, Congress is expanding EPA's existing authority to regulate 
fuel additives. The current provisions of the Clean Air Act provide a 
process for EPA and authorized States to regulate fuels and additives 
in order to protect air quality. This legislation amends that process 
by allowing fuel and additive regulation in order to protect water 
quality, as well. If this authority already existed, EPA and the State 
of California might have been able to address the MTBE problem before 
it became acute without Congressional action.
  There is also an additional prophylactic provision that requires EPA 
to study the health, air quality, and water quality effects of fuel 
additives and blend stocks that may be used as replacements for MTBE. 
The bill specifically lists ETBE, TAME, DIPE, TBA, ethanol, iso-octane, 
and alkylates as additives to be studied.
  The existing law allows the Administrator to require fuel producers 
to conduct tests to determine the health and environmental effects of 
fuels and fuel additives. This provision mandates that the 
Administrator regularly require fuel and fuel additive manufacturers to 
conduct testing and supply information on the effects of those 
substances on public and environmental health.
  Congress intends that the Administrator should use this authority to 
identify and assess any adverse public health, welfare, or 
environmental effects from the use of motor vehicle fuels or fuel 
additives or the combustion products of such fuels or fuel additives. 
The Administrator should use the authority to assess threats to both 
air pollution and water pollution in order to effectively exercise the 
authority in Section 211(c) as amended by this legislation.
  The Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline recommended that EPA 
and others accelerate ongoing research efforts into the inhalation and 
ingestion health effects, air emission transformation byproducts, and 
environmental behavior of all oxygenates and other components likely to 
increase in the absence of MTBE. This should include research on 
ethanol, alkylates, and aromatics, as well as on gasoline compositions 
containing those components.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. In order to limit potential negative 
impacts on gasoline prices and fuel supplies, the legislation 
authorizes a total of $750 million over three fiscal years to promote 
production of other fuel additives. This funding is intended to provide 
grants to merchant MTBE producers for retooling existing facilities to 
produce other clean fuel additives, such as iso-octane, in order to 
avoid any fuel shortages that may have otherwise resulted from the 
elimination of the use of MTBE.

[[Page S5446]]

  According to a report from the EPA, the impact of the Federal 
Reformulated Fuels Act on the fuel supply could range from a one 
percent shortage to a one percent surplus. The report further stated 
that, due to the transition assistance, the actual impact is more 
likely to be on the surplus side.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The renewable fuels and MTBE provisions contained in 
H.R. 4, as passed by the Senate, constitute an agreement among many 
competing interests that is designed to get rid of MTBE and increase 
renewable fuel use.
  After the reformulated gasoline program went into effect in 1995, 
many refiners chose to use MTBE to satisfy the minimum 2 percent oxygen 
requirement of the program. Oxygenates reduce tailpipe emissions of 
carbon monoxide and other ozone precursors and provide a clean source 
of high octane, thereby displacing such toxic gasoline octane enhancers 
as benzene, toluene, and 1,3 butadiene. After implementation of the RFG 
program, increasing detection of MTBE in ground water and surface water 
led California to establish a schedule to ban MTBE and 13 other States 
have followed with their own MTBE bans.
  It became clear that the combination of a phase out of MTBE in these 
states and the continued existence of the two percent oxygen content 
requirement for RFG could result in a potentially disruptive and abrupt 
transition to ethanol in states that did not have a history of using 
ethanol. To facilitate the ban of MTBE, and to provide greater 
flexibility in producing RFG, states and refiners requested Congress 
and the administration to lift the RFG oxygen requirement. At the same 
time, ethanol producers saw a major opportunity for market growth and 
were reluctant to support elimination of the RFG oxygen requirement.
  To address the challenge of maintaining market growth for ethanol, 
providing greater flexibility in making clean-burning gasoline, and 
reducing the use of MTBE, Senators Lugar and Daschle in 2000 introduced 
the Renewable Fuels Act, S. 2503. That bill would allow States to waive 
the 2 percent oxygen requirement and established a nation-wide 
renewable fuels standard (RFS) to roughly triple the use of ethanol 
from current levels over 10 years. That RFS requirement would apply to 
refiners, who would be able to generate, bank, and trade credits for 
the use of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. This 
mechanism was designed to increase the use of renewable fuels, provide 
maximum flexibility in the use of those renewable fuels, while ensuring 
that eliminating MTBE from gasoline supplies will not lead to greater 
dependence on foreign oil. As a result of the credit trading and 
banking, refiners will use renewable fuels where and when it is most 
economical to do so, and no State will need to use any particular 
amount of renewable fuel.
  That legislation also established that ethanol produced from 
cellulosic biomass, which is particularly energy-efficient and produces 
superior greenhouse gas benefits, would receive 1.5 credits for every 
gallon used. This should spur the establishment of new ethanol 
facilities across the United States that will use wood waste, municipal 
solid waste, switchgrass, and other innovative feedstocks.
  In September of 2000, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee passed legislation, S. 2962, which incorporated many of the 
elements of S. 2503, but Congress adjourned prior to enactment of that 
bill. The EPW Committee again took up the issue in September of 2001, 
passing legislation to allow states to waive the oxygen requirement, 
banning MTBE, and providing additional resources for cleaning up MTBE 
contamination, but not including a renewable fuels standard. As the 
Senator from New Hampshire mentioned earlier, that legislation, S. 950, 
was largely incorporated into S. 517, the Energy Policy Act. A separate 
section establishing a renewable fuels standard also was included in S. 
517. Subsequently, negotiations between the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, the Energy Committee, and ethanol, public health, 
environmental, and petroleum interests produced a compromise that 
replaced the initial MTBE and renewable fuels provisions of S. 517.

  During debate on the RFS, concerns were raised that it could lead to 
gasoline price increases. In response, Senators Murkowski and Daschle 
asked the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to evaluate the 
potential costs of implementing the RFS, as well as the other fuels 
provisions in S. 517. The EIA found that the RFS would raise gasoline 
prices by less than 1 penny per gallon in RFG areas and less than one-
half a cent per gallon nationwide. The EIA also noted that these were 
upper-bound estimates that did not account for the economic benefits 
that would result from the credit trading and banking provisions. The 
American Petroleum Institute estimated that the maximum cost increase 
for a gallon of gasoline due to the implementation of the RFS would be 
less than one-third of a cent per gallon.
  Concerns have also been expressed that requiring the nation to use 
more renewable fuels could lead to supply shortages and price 
increases. The evidence suggests that there will be abundant supplies 
of renewable fuels to meet the RFS. The RFS begins in 2004, requiring 
2.3 billion gallons of ethanol to be used in that year. According to 
the California Energy Commission report on nationwide ethanol supplies, 
issued in August of 2001, there will be 2.7 billion gallons of ethanol 
capacity in place by then, so renewable fuels supplies should be 
plentiful.
  Nevertheless, additional consumer protections were incorporated into 
the legislation. Under the bill, the Department of Energy is required 
to evaluate supply and logistics of transporting and blending renewable 
fuels. If problems are anticipated, the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency is instructed to reduce the level of 
the RFS in 2004. In subsequent years, States that are concerned about 
renewable fuels prices or supplies may apply to the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the RFS in whole or in 
part. State applications must be acted upon within 90 days.
  The legislation creates a narrow prospective safe harbor from 
liability for defect in design or manufacture of a renewable fuel by 
virtue of it being mandated by this legislation. To qualify for this 
limited protection, manufacturers of such fuels must have evaluated 
them for EPA with respect to their toxicity, carcinogenicity, air 
quality impacts, water quality impacts and they must be used in 
compliance with any restrictions imposed by EPA. All other causes of 
action or damages available under applicable State or Federal law are 
unaffected by this legislation including, but not limited to, 
negligence, duty to warn, personal injury, property damage, 
environmental damage, wrongful death, compensatory damages, and 
punitive damages.
  The Senate passed its bill on April 25 and appointed conferees on May 
1. We should move quickly to begin this conference because there are 
many difficult matters to negotiate. Fortunately, the compromise 
provisions which we have been discussing relating to MTBE and renewable 
fuels appear to have broad support, judging from the votes in the 
Senate, and should be amenable to swift agreement among the energy bill 
conferees.
  So, as I mentioned during the debate on S.517 as part of my summary 
of these provisions, this is not an ideal package, but it meets the 
test of improving and protecting air and water quality and promoting 
renewable energy.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I agree with the chairman 
that this legislation is not ideal, but it accomplishes our main goal 
of remediation and prevention of MTBE contamination. I am pleased that 
the House has appointed its conferees today and I hope that we can move 
that conference to an expeditious conclusion maintaining the integrity 
of the compromise that we worked out here in the Senate.

                          ____________________