Government▼Watch
Congress approved $8.1 billion for the U.S. EPA’s budget this year (Fiscal Year 2003), a figure slightly higher than the $7.9 billion approved last year. The budget, signed in February by President Bush, includes an 8.2% jump in funding for research and development (R&D) programs, bringing EPA’s R&D total up to $643 million. But most of that increase ($49 million) is tagged for research on building decontamination, in response to the anthrax attacks on congressional office buildings in 2001. Funds for most of the agency’s R&D programs, other than the building decontamination, would stay the course or be slightly less than what the agency received from Congress for FY ’02. This ensures that the 50 or so congressionally “earmarked” environmentally related research projects are funded. For the past few years, Congress has inserted language setting aside funds for projects at institutions and universities. In FY ’03, for example, earmarked projects include $3.5 million for the Mine Waste Technology Program run jointly by EPA and the U.S. Energy Department. EPA’s Superfund program was provided $1.3 billion, the same amount the agency received in FY ’02. Environmental programs and management at EPA received $2.1 billion. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants, a state loan program directed at constructing or improving municipal wastewater facilities, received $1.35 billion. Of that, $75 million is for controlling nonpoint source pollution. An additional $850 million is slated for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants, aimed at improving drinking water facilities and systems. Congress also provided $72 million for the states to continue replacing leaking underground storage tanks. The conference report accompanying the legislation requires the EPA © 2003 American Chemical Society
administrator to undertake several actions, such as working with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate the impact of the controversial Clean Air Act rules relating to new source review (NSR), which were published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2002 (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 181A–182A). The NSR provisions require owners of industrial facilities to seek a new emissions control permit if a planned modification raises emission levels. Congress also directed the administrator to ask the NAS to review EPA’s dioxin reassessment draft, which is more than 10 years old, unless an EPA Intergovernmental Working Group designed to review the reassessment had completed its work, and urged EPA officials to finalize and release the dioxin document. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
with all requests for information. The Senate bill uses the same safe harbor language for ethanol. It also bans the production of MTBE and excludes it from liability protection. This phaseout of MTBE, which is included in Senate bill S. 791, is favored by many states, 17 of which have banned MTBE. Consumers refuse to drink water that has concentrations as low as 20−40 parts per billion of MTBE because of its foul odor. MTBE also is a suspected carcinogen. PHOTODISC
EPA budget tops $8 billion
“Safe harbor” garners controversy The U.S. Congress is considering a liability exemption for the producers of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and renewable fuels, raising a red flag for water agencies, environmental groups, and state agencies. Thousands of sites across the United States are contaminated with MTBE, and water agencies and states are concerned that they will be left with the cleanup tab if the liability exemptions are approved. The exemptions are part of large energy bills in the House and Senate (S. 14, H.R. 6, and S. 791). Although the Senate has yet to vote on its energy bill, the House energy bill passed with product liability exemptions for both MTBE and renewable fuels, including ethanol, on April 11. The House bill’s “safe harbor” exemption states that any fuel containing renewable fuel or MTBE can’t be deemed defective if the U.S. EPA administrator doesn’t restrict or prohibit it and the manufacturer complies
Congress proposes liability waiver for producers of ethanol and MTBE-containing fuel.
The debate is spurred on by a 2002 settlement of a lawsuit brought by California’s South Tahoe Water District. The water district accused several oil producers of making a defective product, namely, fuel containing MTBE. The legal settlement requires the companies to pay $60 million to clean up MTBE-contaminated water supplies. S. 791’s exemption for ethanol and other renewable fuels has also raised concerns. However, Monte Shaw, spokesperson for the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol trade association, says that the provision is misunderstood. While the exemption would prevent a jury or a court from finding that a blended fuel is a defective product, it doesn’t prevent anyone from suing and claiming funds to clean up spills or leaks. LEONA KANASKIE
AUGUST 1, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 285 A
