Order Code IB10115
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated August 29, 2003
Coordinated by Susan Fletcher and Margaret Isler
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations
Clean Air Issues
Climate Change
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Superfund and Brownfields
Chemical Security and Toxic Substance Control Issues
Environmental Issues and Surface Transportation
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
Table 1. Action on Environmental Legislation in the 108th Congress

---

IB10115
08-29-03
Environmental Protection Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief provides an overview of
reauthorization legislation, brownfields grants,
some of the key environmental protection
environmental issues in comprehensive energy
issues that have been and are likely to con-
legislation, and defense cleanup and mili-
tinue to be the focus of public and congressio-
tary/environment issues.
nal attention. The individual sections below,
on specific issues, reference more detailed
These issues are discussed in this report,
CRS reports.
along with other issues likely to be on the
environmental agenda: Clean Air Act issues;
The initial focus of the 108th Congress
Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act;
was on finalizing FY2003 funding not com-
climate change; chemical plant security; and
pleted by the 107th Congress. Appropriations
alternative fuels and vehicles. (The major
for the Environmental Protection Agency
emphasis in this issue brief is on pollution-
(EPA) were among those unresolved, and a
related issues; environmental issues focused
number of controversial environmental
on natural resource management are not in-
amendments were under debate as Congress
cluded here.)
considered a consolidated appropriations act,
H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7). As approved, it in-
The status of committee and floor action
cluded $8.0 billion for EPA for FY2003.
on environmental legislation is shown in
Budgetary attention next turned to the FY2004
Table 1 at the end of the issue brief. Bills
appropriations, for which the request for EPA
receiving congressional action include the
is $7.6 billion, or 5% less than approved for
Senate version of the House Energy bill, H.R.
FY2003. The House approved $8.0 billion in
6; the Wastewater Treatment Works Security
H.R. 2861, amended, on July 25 (H.Rept. 108-
Act of 2003, H.R. 866 and S. 1039; the Un-
235). Senate action is anticipated in Septem-
derground Storage Tank Compliance Act of
ber.
2003, S. 195; the Ombudsman Reauthoriza-
tion Act, S. 515; the Brownfields Redevelop-
A number of other key issues are likely to
ment Enhancement Act, H.R. 239; and H.R.
see, or have seen, action in the 108th Congress,
1560, the Water Quality Financing Act of
including leaking underground storage tanks
2003. H.R. 1588, the National Defense Au-
that may contaminate water supplies,
thorization Act for 2004, in conference,
wastewater treatment utility security, expand-
includes environmental provisions that have
ing authority for an EPA ombudsman, envi-
been controversial.
ronmental concerns in surface transportation
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10115
08-29-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On April 11, the House passed H.R. 6, a comprehensive energy bill. Among its
provisions were amendments to the Clean Air Act’s reformulated gasoline (RFG) program,
eliminating the requirement that RFG contain 2% oxygen and establishing a new requirement
that an increasing percentage of gasoline contain renewable fuels such as ethanol. It would
also authorize renewable energy projects, provide for methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
cleanup, and provide energy tax incentives. On June 3, the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee reported MTBE cleanup and renewable fuels provisions in S. 791, which
would also provide a ban on the use of MTBE in motor fuels, except in states that
specifically authorize its use. These provisions, with few modifications, were incorporated
in S. 14, the Senate’s comprehensive energy bill, by amendment (S.Amdt. 850) on June 5.
On July 31, the Senate set this bill aside and amended and passed H.R. 6 to incorporate the
language of comprehensive energy legislation that it had approved in H.R. 4 in the 107th
Congress. The Senate version includes a renewable fuel standard, bans the use of MTBE in
gasoline, establishes a greenhouse gas database and an Office of National Climate Change
Policy.
The House approved $8.0 billion in appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in H.R. 2861, amended, on July 25 (H.Rept. 108-235). Senate action is
anticipated in September.
Brownfield sites are made eligible for certain Economic Development Administration
(EDA) grants in the EDA reauthorization bill that was reported from the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on July 25 (H.R. 2535, H.Rept. 108-242, Part
I.). Action was taken on a number of other environmental bills. See Table 1 at the end of
this issue brief for a summary of action on environmental bills in the 108th Congress and
issue discussions below for details.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
In the first session of the 108th Congress, legislative action has been taken on a number
of environmental measures, many of which represent unfinished proposals or initiatives that
were under consideration in the 107th Congress. These include funding levels and
implementing requirements concerning grant funds for leaking underground storage tanks;
brownfields and Superfund; sewage treatment facility security; ground water contamination
by the fuel additive MTBE; funding for wastewater treatment plant construction projects;
various environmental protection programs in the comprehensive energy bill; and
Department of Energy and Department of Defense environmental cleanup programs, which
include provisions concerning specific environmental matters of congressional concern. All
of these are discussed in the sections below, and action in this Congress is summarized in
Table 1.
Other major issues on the environmental protection agenda of the 108th Congress will
likely include consideration of the Administration’s “Clear Skies” proposal concerning
emissions from electric power plants, continuing interest in energy conservation and climate
CRS-1

---

IB10115
08-29-03
change, and an Administration proposal concerning treaties controlling certain persistent
pesticide and other pollutants. Also under consideration are the authorization of
environmental grant programs within the Surface Transportation authorization, more
commonly known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which
expires at the end of FY2003; and oversight of various programs, including a Clean Water
Act program for restoring pollution-impaired waters, New Source Review regulations
implementing provisions of the Clean Air Act, and research and other programs relating to
climate change.
While the overall authorizations for most environmental protection statutes have
expired, program activities continue as Congress has regularly appropriated funds to
implement these laws; so the fact that authorizations have expired does not seem to be a
significant impetus for legislative activity. However, specific pollution problems,
perceptions of regulatory inefficiencies or adverse effects, and demands for or constraints on
funding programs may continue to stimulate legislative action.
The discussion of the major environmental protection issues below focuses on the
nature of the issues and expected activity in the 108th Congress. It is not intended to include
comprehensive coverage of all environmental issues; in particular, it does not address issues
involving public lands and natural resources. For more details on individual issues, see the
references in each section below. For an overview of environmental protection laws, see
CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations
The 108th Congress approved consolidated appropriation legislation, P.L. 108-7
(H.J.Res. 2, H.Rept. 108-10), signed February 20, 2003, to fund federal agencies, including
EPA at $8.08 billion for the rest of FY2003.
In the FY2004 budget presented February 3, the President requested $7.7 billion in
budget authority for the EPA, $451 million (or 6%) less than the FY2003 level of $8.08
billion provided under P.L. 108-7. A proposed reduction of $713 million, or 19%, in the
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account contributed to the overall reduction. The
proposal for other EPA major accounts either stayed essentially level or increased. The $731
million requested for the Science and Technology account reflects a $16 million increase;
for the Environmental Programs and Management account, the requested level is $121
million, or a 6%, increase compared to current funding. The $1.5 billion requested to clean
up toxic waste sites under Superfund is $125 million above the current year level. The
question of how to fund state and local wastewater and drinking water capital needs is once
again a major issue. The request seeks $3.1 billion for the STAG account, a 19% decrease,
as noted. These planned reductions for popular wastewater state revolving funds and direct
grants are likely to be controversial.
On July 25, 2003, the House approved $8.0 billion in H.R. 2861 (H.Rept. 108-235);
Senate action is anticipated in September. The House-passed version reinstated some of the
funds for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, providing $1.25 billion rather than the $850
million requested. The House also provided $180 million for targeted water infrastructure
CRS-2

---

IB10115
08-29-03
grants; the Administration sought $8 million. The House did not grant the full increase
requested for the Environmental Program and Management Account. It added on funds to
the Superfund and Science and Technology accounts. In bill language, the House prohibited
EPA from using a numerical estimate that could devalue the lives of the elderly and
continued a ban on human testing of pesticides.
Earlier, while considering the FY2004 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 23), the Senate
adopted a provision allowing for the increased wastewater and clean water funds by as much
as $3 billion and rejected provisions to restore the Superfund tax and to increase natural
resources and environment funding overall.
[This section prepared by Martin R. Lee, Specialist in Environmental Policy, x7-7260]
Clean Air Issues
The most prominent air quality issue in recent months has been what to do about
emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. The Administration and several members
of Congress have proposed legislation on the subject — a group of bills referred to as
“multi-pollutant” legislation. The Administration version (the Clear Skies Act, H.R. 999/S.
485) proposes to replace numerous existing Clean Air Act requirements with a national cap
and trade program for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Senator Jeffords, Senator
Carper, Representative Sweeney, and Representative Waxman have also introduced bills (S.
366, S. 843, H.R. 203, and H.R. 2042, respectively). These bills are all more stringent than
Clear Skies, and three of the four would regulate carbon dioxide in addition to the other
pollutants. The Clean Air subcommittee of Senate Environment and Public Works and the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of House Energy and Commerce have both held
hearings on the subject, but as of the August congressional recess, markup had not been
scheduled.
Controversy has also arisen over EPA’s proposed changes to the Clean Air Act’s New
Source Review (NSR) requirements. NSR imposes emission controls on modifications of
power plants and other major facilities. In its consideration of the omnibus FY2003
appropriation bill (H.J.Res. 2) on January 22, the Senate narrowly defeated an amendment
that would have delayed implementation of changes to the NSR requirements pending a
study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The Senate did approve a separate
amendment directing NAS to conduct such a study, but not delaying implementation of the
standards. The President signed the bill, with the latter amendment, February 20 (P.L. 108-7).
A holdover issue from several previous Congresses concerns regulation of the gasoline
additive MTBE. MTBE is used to meet Clean Air Act requirements that gasoline sold in the
nation’s worst ozone nonattainment areas contain at least 2% oxygen, to improve
combustion. The additive has been implicated in numerous incidents of ground water
contamination, and 17 states have taken steps to ban or regulate its use.
The most significant of these bans (in California and New York) take effect at the end of
2003, leading many to suggest that Congress revisit the issue before then to modify the
oxygen requirement and set more uni-form national requirements regarding MTBE and its
potential replacements (principally ethanol). H.R. 6, the energy bill that passed the House
CRS-3

---

IB10115
08-29-03
April 11, addresses some of these issues, eliminating the oxygen requirement, providing
funds for the cleanup of MTBE in ground water and for conversion of MTBE production
facilities, and requiring the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol in gasoline. It does not ban
the use of MTBE, however. On April 9, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee ordered similar legislation (S. 791) to be reported. S. 791 would ban MTBE use
in motor fuels 4 years after the date of enactment, except in states that specifically authorize
its use. Provisions similar to S. 791 (S.Amdt. 850) were added to the Senate energy bill, S.
14, on June 5, and are included in the Senate version of H.R. 6, which passed the Senate as
a substitute for S. 14, July 31, 2003.
Other clean air issues that might be considered in the 108th Congress are the conformity
of metropolitan area transportation plans with the Clean Air Act, and whether to modify the
Act’s requirements for areas that have not met deadlines for attainment of the ozone air
quality standard.
(For additional information on clean air issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10107, Clean Air
Act Issues in the 108th Congress.)
[This section prepared by Jim McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225.]
Climate Change
Climate change issues have been the subject of some activity and legislative proposals
in the 108th Congress. On January 8, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation held a hearing on a greenhouse gas reduction and emissions trading
system. S. 139 would require any entity that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide equivalent) to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels by
2010, and to 1990 levels by 2016. The bill would allow tradeable credits for reductions
beyond those required, reductions from non-covered entities, increases in carbon
sequestration, increases in passenger vehicle fuel economy, and emissions reductions in other
countries. Three other bills, H.R. 1245, S. 17, and S. 194 would establish mandatory
greenhouse gas registries, but would not require emission reductions.
In the 108th Congress, a discussion of climate change legislation is likely in the
Conference on H.R. 6, the comprehensive energy bill. The Senate passed its version of the
bill on July 31, 2003. In addition to provisions on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and
energy supply, the Senate version contains three titles directly related to climate change:
Title X would establish an Office of National Climate Change Policy that would be tasked
with developing a national climate change strategy; Title XI would establish a national
greenhouse gas registry; and Title XIII would promote research and development on climate
science and greenhouse gas mitigation. On April 11, 2003, the House passed its version of
H.R. 6. The House version does not contain any provisions on climate change.
Other congressional action on climate change is possible in the context of
multi-pollutant legislation. Three multi-pollutant bills introduced in the 108th Congress
include carbon dioxide among the emissions to be reduced: S. 366, introduced by Senator
Jeffords, S. 843, introduced by Senator Carper, and H.R. 2042, introduced by Representative
Waxman. S. 366 and H.R. 2042 would require electricity generators to reduce their carbon
CRS-4

---

IB10115
08-29-03
dioxide emissions to their 1990 levels by 2009 while S. 843 would require such sources to
reduce their emissions to their 2001 levels by 2013.
As reported, the Senate State Department authorization bill (Section 813 of S. 925)
contains a “Sense of Congress on Climate Change” that urges the United States “...to
demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in reducing the health, environmental,
and economic risks posed by climate change...” through a number of actions such as action
to ensure reductions in greenhouse gases, participating in international negotiations, and
others. A similar provision was removed from the House version (H.R. 1950) during floor
debate.
In addition to congressional action, the Administration has stated a goal of reducing
U.S. greenhouse gas intensity. Greenhouse gas intensity (the ratio of greenhouse gas
emissions to economic output), is effectively a measure of the efficiency of the economy.
The Administration’s proposal is to reduce greenhouse gas intensity 18% by 2012. Under
this scenario, actual greenhouse gas emissions would still increase if the economy continued
to grow.
(For further discussion , see CRS Report RL31931, Climate Change: Federal Laws and
Polices Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions; CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate
Change; and CRS Report RL30692, Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol.)
[This section prepared by Brent Yacobucci, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-9662.]
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal law that governs pollution in the nation’s
lakes, rivers, and coastal waters, and authorizes funds to aid construction of municipal
wastewater treatment plants. Although no comprehensive legislation has been enacted since
1987, bills dealing with specific water quality issues have been enacted, and oversight
hearings on the Act and recent Administration water quality initiatives have been held.
Throughout this period, Congress has considered possible actions to implement existing
provisions of the CWA, whether additional steps are necessary to achieve the overall goals
of the Act, and the appropriate federal role in guiding and paying for clean water
infrastructure and other activities. (For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10108,
Clean Water Act Issues in the 108th Congress.)
Legislation to authorize funding for clean water infrastructure projects is receiving
attention, as it did in the 107th Congress. At issue is how the federal government will assist
states and cities in meeting needs to rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater treatment plants,
especially in view of costs that are projected to be as much as $390 billion over the next two
decades. On July 17, 2003, a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
subcommittee approved legislation to authorize $20 billion over 5 years for the Act’s
program that assists municipal wastewater treatment projects (H.R. 1560). It includes several
provisions intended to aid economically disadvantaged and small communities, such as
allowing extended loan repayments (30 years) and additional subsidies, including principal
forgiveness and negative interest loans, for communities that meet a state’s affordability
criteria. Several other bills to reauthorize the CWA’s infrastructure assistance program also
CRS-5

---

IB10115
08-29-03
have been introduced in the 108th Congress (H.R. 20/S. 170; H.R. 784/S. 567). In 2002, the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved a bill to extend the Clean
Water Act’s program that assists municipal wastewater treatment projects (H.R. 3930); the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved similar legislation (S. 1961,
S.Rept. 107-228). Neither bill received further action due to controversies about provisions
in both such as a new formula for state-by-state allocation of federal funds and application
of requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act to pay prevailing wages on federally funded
projects.
More generally, since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, congressional attention has focused on security, preparedness, and
emergency response issues. One topic of interest is protection of the nation’s water
infrastructure facilities (both wastewater and drinking water) from possible physical damage,
biological/chemical attacks, and cyber disruption. (For information, see CRS Report
RS21026, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector.) In the
108th Congress, the House has passed legislation to authorize grants for wastewater utilities
to assess the vulnerability of their facilities to possible terrorist attack (H.R. 866). The
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved a similar bill (S. 1039).
Other water quality issues in the 108th Congress may include interest in whether and
how the Administration will revise the current Clean Water Act program for restoration of
pollution-impaired waters, called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, in view
of controversy over Clinton Administration regulatory changes and continuing disagreement
among states, industry, and environmental advocates about program effectiveness and
efficiency. Also of interest are impacts of the Clean Water Act’s wetlands permit program,
long criticized by development groups as being burdensome, but supported by environmental
groups. These latter groups are concerned about a 2001 Supreme Court decision that
narrowed regulatory protection of wetlands, as well as recent administrative actions which
they believe will likewise diminish protection.
(For additional background information, see CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act:
A Summary of the Law.)
[This section prepared by Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and Environmental
Policy, 7-7227]
Safe Drinking Water
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal statute for regulating the
quality of water provided by public water systems. Congress last reauthorized the Act in
1996, authorizing funding for SDWA programs through FY2003. Key drinking water issues
in the 108th Congress include the availability of funding for infrastructure projects needed to
comply with drinking water standards, and the contamination of water supplies caused by
unregulated contaminants, including the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
and perchlorate.
The 108th Congress has renewed efforts to address the problem of water contamination
caused by MTBE. The House and Senate each have acted on bills that authorize funding to
remediate MTBE contamination, including: the Senate-passed underground storage tank bill,
CRS-6

---

IB10115
08-29-03
S. 195; and the different versions of H.R. 6, the comprehensive energy bills passed by the
House and the Senate (S.Amdt. 1537). (See section below on Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks.)
Several bills address contamination by perchlorate (the main ingredient in solid rocket
fuel), which is another chemical not regulated under SDWA. H.R. 2123 and S. 502 require
EPA to issue a drinking water standard for perchlorate by July 1, 2004. H.R. 2123 further
directs EPA to carry out a loan program to help water suppliers and private well owners
address perchlorate contamination. House and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1588, the
Department of Defense (DOD) authorization act for FY2004, call for an epidemiological
study of exposure to perchlorate in drinking water. The Senate-passed bill also directs DOD
to survey perchlorate contamination at DOD sites.
A long-standing SDWA issue concerns the ability of public water systems to upgrade
or replace infrastructure to comply with federal drinking water regulations and, generally, to
ensure the provision of a safe and reliable water supply. In the 1996 SDWA Amendments,
Congress authorized a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program to help
water systems finance infrastructure projects needed to meet SDWA standards and to address
serious health risks. Since FY1997, Congress has provided some $6 billion for the program,
including nearly $850 million for FY2003. The Administration has requested $850 million
again for FY2004. However, a large existing funding gap is expected to grow as EPA issues
new standards, and infrastructure ages. In the 107th Congress, the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee reported a water infrastructure financing bill to increase funding
authority for the DWSRF program and create a grant program for small systems. Legislation
addressing drinking water infrastructure funding and related SDWA compliance issues will
likely receive attention again in this Congress. However, in the current environment of tight
budgets and competing priorities, questions concerning the appropriate federal role in
funding water infrastructure could receive renewed attention.
Drinking water security is likely to remain an issue for Congress. The 107th Congress
addressed this issue in the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188), which
amended the SDWA to require many community water systems to conduct vulnerability
assessments and prepare or revise emergency response plans. The 108th Congress may be
interested in overseeing implementation of these provisions and other efforts to improve
water security. (For more information, see CRS Report RL31294, Safeguarding the Nation’s
Drinking Water: EPA and Congressional Actions.)
(For further discussion of drinking water issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10118, Safe
Drinking Water Act: Implementation and Issues. For a review of the SDWA, see CRS
Report RL31243, Safe Drinking Water Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major
Requirements.)
[This section prepared by Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937]
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
In 1984, Congress established a leak prevention, detection, and corrective action
program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to address a
CRS-7

---

IB10115
08-29-03
widespread problem of leaking underground tanks that store petroleum or hazardous
chemicals. In 1986, Congress created the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust
Fund to help the EPA and states cover the costs of responding to leaking petroleum USTs
where tank owners fail to do so, and to oversee cleanup activities. Much progress has been
made in the tank program, but several issues have emerged. One issue is that state workloads
have grown, as states enforced UST regulations phased in through 1998, and as more leaks
were detected as tank owners acted to comply. A more recent issue has concerned the
discovery of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) leaks at thousands of LUST sites. This
gasoline additive, used to reduce air pollution from vehicles, is very water soluble and
spreads quickly. Consequently, MTBE leaks are more difficult and costly to cleanup than
conventional gasoline leaks.
States have long sought larger appropriations from the Trust Fund to support the LUST
cleanup program, and some have sought flexibility to use LUST funds for the UST leak
prevention program. The House passed such bills in the 104th and 105th Congresses. The
subsequent increase in detections of MTBE in drinking water supplies has boosted
congressional interest in increasing Trust Fund appropriations to remediate MTBE
contamination and to enforce the UST leak prevention and detection program. Among the
LUST and MTBE bills in the 107th Congress, the Senate version of the energy bill, H.R. 4,
would have expanded the LUST program, and House and Senate versions of H.R. 4 would
have authorized Trust Fund appropriations to clean up MTBE contamination.
The 108th Congress has acted on legislation to address the contamination of drinking
water by MTBE. On May 1, 2003, the Senate passed S. 195 (S.Rept. 108-13), which adds
new leak prevention and enforcement provisions to the UST program. The bill authorizes
appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund for remediating MTBE contamination. A similar
bill, H.R. 2733, has been introduced and would authorize the use of Trust Fund
appropriations for remediating MTBE and other ether fuel leaks. Both bills include new
inspection and operator training provisions.
In April, 2003, the House passed H.R. 6, a broad energy bill that authorizes the use of
$850 million from the LUST Trust Fund for responding to releases of fuels containing
oxygenates (e.g., MTBE, other ethers, and ethanol). H.R. 6 eliminates the oxygen content
requirement in the Clean Air Act for reformulated gasoline (RFG), which had prompted the
increased use of MTBE. It also promotes the use of renewable fuels and contains a “safe
harbor” provision to protect manufacturers of fuels containing MTBE and renewable fuels
(e.g., ethanol) from product liability lawsuits. In June, the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee reported S. 791 (S.Rept. 108-57), which bans MTBE, promotes the use
of renewable fuels, and contains a product liability safe harbor for renewable fuels, but not
MTBE. S. 791 authorizes the use of $200 million from the Trust Fund for remediating
contamination from releases of ether fuel additives and authorizes additional funding for the
enforcement of UST leak prevention requirements. On June 6, the text of S. 791 was added
as an amendment to the Senate energy bill, S. 14. On July 31, 2003, the Senate put aside S.
14 and passed its own version of H.R. 6 (S.Amdt. 1537), substituting the text of last year’s
Senate-passed energy bill. The Senate version of H.R. 6 authorizes the appropriation of $200
million from the LUST Trust Fund for cleaning up MTBE and other ether fuel
contamination, bans MTBE, promotes the use of renewable fuels, and provides a product
liability safe harbor for renewable fuels, but not for MTBE. It also authorizes Trust Fund
CRS-8

---

IB10115
08-29-03
money for enforcing the UST leak prevention program and includes research and technical
assistance provisions.
(For more information on this issue, see CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks: Program Status and Issues.)
[This section prepared by Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937]
Superfund and Brownfields
Superfund (created by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, or CERCLA) is the principal federal program for cleaning up hazardous waste
sites; the brownfields program targets less seriously contaminated industrial and commercial
facilities where redevelopment is complicated by potential environmental contamination.
Activity relevant to those issues in the 108th Congress includes the reporting of H.R. 2535,
authorizing brownfield grants by the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the
reporting of H.R. 239, making brownfield grants administered by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) more accessible to smaller communities, and Senate passage
of S. 515, the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10114, Brownfields and Superfund Issues in the 108th Congress.)
The EDA Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2535, among other things would make brownfield
sites eligible for certain EDA grants and would establish a demonstration program for
“brightfield” sites, which are defined as brownfields that are redeveloped using solar energy
technologies. H.R. 2535 was reported from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
on July 25, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-242, Part I) and is now before the Financial Services
Committee.
The HUD bill, H.R. 239, would remove the connection between HUD’s Brownfield
Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) and the department’s Section 108 loan guarantees.
The effect is to make the BEDI grants more obtainable by a larger number of cities,
particularly smaller communities. The bill would also authorize a HUD pilot program for
national redevelopment of brownfields. The House Financial Services Committee reported
H.R. 239 (H.Rept. 108-22) on March 5, 2003. The president’s FY2004 budget request
proposes eliminating the HUD brownfields program.
Another issue, continued from the 107th Congress, concerns the Ombudsman
Reauthorization Act (S. 515, S.Rept. 108-50), which would provide the EPA ombudsman
increased independence and authority regarding Superfund and brownfields, as well as other
programs in the agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
OSWER also administers EPA’s solid waste, leaking underground storage tank, oil spill, and
chemical emergency preparedness and prevention activities. The bill would give the officer
power to conduct investigations, make findings of fact, hold public hearings, and make non-
binding recommendations to the EPA Administrator concerning those programs. The Senate
passed S. 515 on May 21, 2003, and the bill is now before the House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. Rep. Bilirakis introduced a
companion bill, H.R. 347, on January 27, 2003.
CRS-9

---

IB10115
08-29-03
The financing of Superfund activities continues to be a controversial issue. The taxes
that originally fed the Superfund trust fund expired in 1995, and appropriations in the last
few years have relied on progressively larger amounts from the general fund of the Treasury.
The Superfund trust fund’s unobligated balance is expected to be down to about $159 million
by the end of FY2003. (The program’s annual appropriation has been $1.3-$1.5 billion in
recent years.) Three efforts to reinstate the Superfund taxes or to increase Superfund funding
have been defeated. The House passed an FY2004 appropriation of $1.275 billion for the
Superfund program on July 25, 2003, as part of H.R. 2861. An amendment by
Representative Markey to increase the amount to the $1.39 billion requested by the
Administration was defeated 114-309. In January 2003 an amendment by Senator
Lautenberg to increase the FY2003 Superfund appropriation by $100 million to $1.373
billion was defeated (H.J.Res. 2), and in March 2003 a Lautenberg amendment to the
FY2004 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 23) to renew the Superfund taxes also lost. Bills to
reinstate the Superfund taxes are Senator Boxer’s S. 173 and Representative Pallone’s H.R.
610. (For further discussion, see CRS Report RL31410, Superfund Taxes or General
Revenues: Future Funding Options for the Superfund Program.)
[This section prepared by Mark Reisch, Analyst in Environmental Policy, 7-7255]
Chemical Security and Toxic Substance Control Issues
Deliberations begun in the 107th Congress have continued in the 108th about how to
manage risks associated with terrorism aimed at facilities storing or handling large quantities
of potentially dangerous chemicals. The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works has made legislation addressing chemical facility security a high priority,
and has introduced legislation, S. 994, derived from a proposal developed by the Bush
Administration. The bill would require owners or operators of facilities designated by the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct vulnerability
assessments and develop security and emergency response plans. Assessments and plans
would remain at the facilities, unless requested by the Secretary of DHS. Another proposal,
S. 157 (also contained in Title XI of S. 6 and in H.R. 1861), would require vulnerability
assessments, risk reduction plans, and risk reduction, in part by use of “inherently safer”
technologies, if practicable. S. 157 would require submission of assessments and plans to
EPA. A third proposal, H.R. 2901, was introduced July 25, 2003. It contains elements of
both S. 994 and S. 157. For example, like S. 994, the House bill would not require
submission of assessments and plans to DHS for most facilities, but like S. 157, H.R. 2901
would require DHS, in consultation with EPA, to designate high-priority facilities, and those
facilities all would be required to submit assessments and plans to DHS. Other proposals,
S. 565/H.R. 1593 and S. 87/H.R. 1007, would provide funding for grants to state and local
governments that could be used to improve security at chemical plants, as well as to enhance
emergency planning and preparedness for terrorist acts. The law that established the DHS
(P.L. 107-296) limits access to sensitive information potentially useful to terrorists, by
exempting information about critical infrastructures from disclosure requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), if the information is submitted voluntarily to DHS. S.
609/H.R. 2526 would narrow this FOIA exemption to “records” concerning the
“vulnerability of and threats to critical infrastructure protection.” (For more on this topic,
see CRS Report RL31530, Chemical Plant Security.)
CRS-10

---

IB10115
08-29-03
Another issue of potential interest to Congress is EPA’s “High Production Volume
(HPV) Challenge” program. Under this initiative, chemical manufacturers will voluntarily
gather the basic data that are needed to assess the potential toxicity of approximately 3,000
chemicals produced in the United States in volumes greater than one million pounds per year,
and to make those data available to the general public before 2005. EPA found in 1998 that
data were inadequate to estimate potential health and environmental effects for 93% of HPV
chemicals. More than 400 chemical manufacturers have agreed to submit data. However,
there remain hundreds of HPV chemicals for which no manufacturer has volunteered to
collect data. EPA issued a proposed rule in August 2000 that would have mandated testing
for 37 of these unsponsored chemicals, but the rule has not yet been promulgated. At issue
is whether a voluntary initiative or a compulsory rule is the better way to obtain data.
Environmental Defense, an environmental advocacy group, supports the voluntary testing
initiative as a means of quickly filling data gaps. Animal rights advocates argue that rather
than relying on a voluntary program, EPA should promulgate a rule requiring data
submission, believing that a rule would garner more useful data from more chemical
manufacturers, and obviate the need for much animal testing. For more on this issue, see
CRS Report IB94036, The Role of Risk Analysis and Risk Management in Environmental
Protection. Background information on EPA’s statutory authority for regulating chemicals
is provided in CRS Report RL31905, The Toxic Substances Control Act: A Summary of the
Act and Its Major Requirements.

Other chemical issues that Congress might address include funding for lead hazard
abatement and proposed legislation (S. 1486) to allow U.S. implementation of the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). (For a discussion of the latter, see CRS
Report RL31652, Persistent Organic Pollutants: Background and Issues for Congress.)

[This section prepared by Linda Schierow, Environmental Policy Specialist, 7-7279.]
Environmental Issues and Surface Transportation
Meeting public needs for surface transportation infrastructure, while ensuring that the
protection of the environment is not compromised, has been a longstanding issue for states
and local communities. To address these concerns, the Department of Transportation
implements a variety of programs that are designed to help mitigate the environmental
impacts of surface transportation. The funding authorization for these programs expires at
the end of FY2003, and reauthorization is expected to be a major item on the agenda of the
108th Congress. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), was introduced in the House
(H.R. 2088) on May 14, 2003, and in the Senate (S. 1072) on May 15,2003. Committee
markup of reauthorizing legislation had not occurred in the House or Senate as of the August
recess.
The most recent funding authorization for surface transportation projects is contained
in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The law authorized a total
of $218 billion for federal highway and mass transit programs from FY1998 to FY2003 and
set aside over $12 billion for several programs to mitigate the environmental impacts of
highway travel. Most of this funding was reserved for the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) to assist states in complying with federal air quality
CRS-11

---

IB10115
08-29-03
standards, and for environmentally related transportation enhancements. (CRS Report 98-
646 ENR, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178): An Overview of
Environmental Protection Provisions, provides additional information on these and other
programs, and discusses key reauthorization issues.)
Reauthorization of the CMAQ program is likely to receive attention due to questions
regarding its impact on state compliance with federal air quality standards. Proposals to
enhance the program’s effectiveness, or possibly to shift its focus away from air quality to
reducing traffic congestion in general, may be considered. SAFETEA would retain the basic
structure of the program and increase its total funding by nearly $750 million above the
previous authorization of $8.1 billion. It also would revise the funding formula to ensure that
states with new “nonattainment” areas (those that do not meet stricter federal air quality
standards finalized in 1997) receive greater funding, and would require further study of the
program’s effectiveness. SAFETEA would continue support for other environmental
programs as well, with the exception of the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program, which was
not implemented due to redirection of funding in subsequent appropriations.
Another potential issue for reauthorization is whether to take further legislative action
to streamline the environmental review process for surface transportation projects. While
TEA-21 required the Secretary of Transportation to streamline the process, regulations have
yet to be finalized, and most actions have been administrative in nature. The lack of
regulatory action may prompt interest in establishing a new review process in federal statute.
SAFETEA would not create a new process, but would attempt to improve the coordination
of project reviews by allowing greater participation of project sponsors and states. It also
would allow states to make certain decisions necessary for project approvals. Additionally,
SAFETEA would amend current statutory requirements that specify the conditions under
which parks and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites may
be used for a transportation project. While some argue that these changes would help to
increase the pace of project approvals, others believe that environmental protection might be
compromised. (CRS Report RS20841, Environmental Streamlining Provisions in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Status of Implementation, discusses this issue
further.)
[This section prepared by David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390.]
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
While EPA is the primary federal agency responsible for the control of pollution and
the cleanup of civilian environmental contamination, the Department of Defense (DOD) is
responsible for remediating contamination, controlling pollution, and managing natural
resources on 25 million acres of land located on military installations. To fulfill these
responsibilities, DOD administers five environmental programs that clean up past
contamination at current and former military facilities, comply with environmental laws that
apply to ongoing military operations, prevent pollution, develop environmental technologies,
and promote the conservation of natural and cultural resources on the lands that it
administers. In addition to DOD’s programs, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible
for managing defense nuclear waste and cleaning up contaminated nuclear weapons sites.
Over the past decade, Congress has appropriated about $10 billion in annual funding to
support these programs. (For information on each of these programs and a discussion of key
CRS-12

---

IB10115
08-29-03
implementation issues, see CRS Report RL31456, Defense Cleanup and Environmental
Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003.)
Some of the major issues associated with defense-related environmental activities are
the adequacy, cost, and pace of cleanup; whether DOD and DOE sufficiently comply with
environmental laws; and the extent to which environmental requirements may conflict with
military readiness needs. Of these issues, balancing environmental compliance with military
readiness has received increasing attention. While numerous environmental statutes include
exemptions (sometimes referred to as ‘waivers’) for national security, DOD argues that
obtaining such exemptions on a case-by-case basis is not practical, due to the number of
training exercises that it conducts on hundreds of installations. DOD also argues that the
time limitations placed upon most exemptions are not compatible with many training
activities. Instead, DOD has proposed broader modifications to numerous environmental
laws that would provide greater flexibility. Some environmental organizations have opposed
such modifications and argue that the justification for their need has been insufficient. In
March, DOD submitted its Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI) to Congress
to address this issue. The initiative sought targeted exemptions for military readiness
activities from five federal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act; Endangered
Species Act; Solid Waste Disposal Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The RRPI received significant attention in the debate over the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2004 (H.R. 1588). As passed, both the House and Senate versions
of the bill include provisions that would limit the designation of critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act on military installations, if certain conditions are met. Unlike the
Senate bill, the House bill also includes a provision to address compliance with the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. Neither bill includes the provisions that DOD proposed to address
compliance with the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, or CERCLA. However, the
House bill would require DOD to prepare a report that would identify the extent to which
these three statutes have affected military readiness needs. Both bills also include provisions
that would require a study of the effects of perchlorate on human health, which is a substance
commonly used in munitions propellants. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill includes an
additional requirement for DOD to submit a survey of perchlorate contamination on military
installations. Both bills also include a host of other environmental provisions, and they
would authorize nearly the same amount of funding requested for cleaning up contamination
at DOD sites ($1.7 billion) and at DOE’s defense nuclear waste sites ($6.8 billion). A
conference agreement on H.R. 1588 had not been reached as of the August recess.
Debate over FY2004 defense appropriations is also underway, including funding for
environmental activities. As passed by the House, the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for FY2004 (H.R. 2658) would provide $1.28 billion for environmental
cleanup at current and former military facilities, whereas the Senate-passed version of the bill
would provide $1.37 billion, both more than the request of $1.27 billion. The substantial
increase in the Senate bill would be devoted to increasing the pace of cleanup at former
facilities that were decommissioned prior to the rounds of base closings that began in 1988.
As passed by the House and Senate, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for
FY2004 (H.R. 2559) would provide $370 million for base closure activities, including the
cleanup of environmental contamination at these sites, the same as the request. A conference
agreement on neither H.R. 2658 nor H.R. 2559 had been reached as of the August recess.
CRS-13

---

IB10115
08-29-03
In addition to funding for DOD’s programs, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for FY2004 (H.R. 2754), as passed by the House, would provide $6.75
billion for DOE’s defense nuclear waste management and cleanup responsibilities. The
Senate-reported version of the bill (S. 1424, S.Rept. 108-105) would provide $6.76 billion
for these activities. The Administration had requested $6.81 billion. Floor action on S. 1424
had not occurred in the Senate as of the August recess.
[This section prepared by David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390.]
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
The development of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles have emerged
as a key issue in the 108th Congress. Advanced technology vehicles, such as gasoline- or
diesel-electric hybrids and fuel cell vehicles, have the potential to significantly increase
passenger vehicle fuel economy and reduce vehicle emissions. However, mass-production
of these vehicles is currently cost-prohibitive, and for alternative fuels there are many
technical and cost barriers associated with producing, storing, and delivering the fuel.
Therefore, there is interest in Congress and the Administration to support vehicle and fuel
development, and promote their entry into the marketplace.
Hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles have received special attention. On January 28,
2003, the Administration announced the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which aims
to increase funding for hydrogen fuel and fuel cell research by $720 million over the next 5
years. This initiative complements the FreedomCAR partnership, announced in January
2002, which focuses on cooperative research and development of fuel cell passenger
vehicles. Hydrogen research funding is contained in the FY2004 Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill (H.R. 2754 and S. 1424). Fuel cell research and the
FreedomCAR initiative are part of the FY2004 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations
bill (H.R. 2691 and S. 1391). The House Appropriations Committee agreed to reduce
funding for hydrogen in H.R.2754 by $20 million below the Administration’s request (from
$88 million to $68 million). The Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to restore this
funding.
In addition to appropriations bills, Congress is currently considering comprehensive
energy legislation. On April 11, 2003, the House passed H.R. 6. Among other provisions,
this energy bill would authorize hydrogen and fuel cell funding at the Administration’s
requested levels - a total of $1.8 billion over 5 years. The Senate passed its version of H.R.
6 on July 31, 2003. The Senate version would authorize considerably less funding — $290
million over four years. However, the Senate bill would establish the goals of producing
100,000 hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020. The goals are
not binding, but the Department of Energy would be required to develop a plan for research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application in support of the goals and in
support of the development of technologies to provide for the sale of hydrogen at a sufficient
number of fueling stations in the United States. DOE would also be required to include in
each annual budget submission a review of the progress made toward meeting the goals.
Another key component of the energy bill would be a renewable fuels standard. The
House bill would require the use of 5 billion gallons of renewable fuel in gasoline by 2015.
It is likely that this requirement would be met primarily by ethanol. The Senate version
CRS-14

---

IB10115
08-29-03
would require the use of 5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. Both House and Senate
bills would also extend or expand tax incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles
and the development of alternative fuel infrastructure.
The 108th Congress will also likely debate reauthorization of the main transportation
authorization bill, TEA-21 (see above discussion on Environmental Issues and Surface
Transportation). Alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicle bills have been
introduced that could be inserted into the above legislation or debated as stand-alone bills.
Proposals include: increases in research and development funding (above the
Administration’s request); expanded tax incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel and
advanced technology vehicles; expanded incentives for the development of alternative fuel
infrastructure; and user incentives such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane exemptions.
(For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle
R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, and CRS Report
RL30758, Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: Energy, Environment, and
Development Issues.)
[This section prepared by Brent Yacobucci, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-9662]
Table 1. Action on Environmental Legislation
in the 108th Congress
Bill Status
Purposes
H.R. 6
Passed the House
Among environmental provisions, amends the Clean Air
Omnibus Energy bill
April 11, 2003
Act’s reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, and includes
(H.Rept. 108-65).
provisions for R&D, energy tax incentives, MTBE
Amended and passed the
cleanup, establishes a renewable fuels standard,
Senate,
greenhouse gas database and an Office of National
July 31, 2003 (with
Climate Change Policy.
language from H.R. 4 of
the 107th Congress)
H.R. 239
Reported by the House
Makes HUD brownfield grants more accessible to small
Brownfields
Financial Services
communities.
Redevelopment and
Committee
Enhancement Act
March 5, 2003
(H.Rept. 108-22).
H.R. 866
Passed the House
Authorizes funds to wastewater utilities for vulnerability
Wastewater Treatment
May 7, 2003
assessments.
Works Security Act of
(H.Rept. 108-33).
2003
H.R. 1560
Approved by the House
Authorizes appropriations for Clean Water Act state water
The Water Quality
Transportation and
pollution control revolving funds (SRFs).
Financing Act of 2003
Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Water
Resources and
Environment
July 17, 2003
H.R. 1588
Passed by the House
Among major environmental provisions, authorizes
National Defense
May 22, 2003
funding for environmental cleanup, provides greater
Authorization Act for
(H.Rept. 108-106).
compliance flexibility for DOD under the Endangered
CRS-15

---

IB10115
08-29-03
FY2004
In conference with Senate
Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, requires
(Senate bill S. 1050)
a report on the impact of the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste
Disposal Act, and CERCLA on military installations, and
requires a study of exposure to perchlorate (used in
munitions propellents) on human health.
H.R. 2535
Reported by the House
Among other things, makes brownfields eligible for
Economic Development
Transportation and
certain EDA grants, and establishes a demonstration
Administration
Infrastructure Committee
program for “brightfields” (brownfields redeveloped using
Reauthorization Act
July 25, 2003 (H.Rept.
solar energy technologies).
108-242, Part I.)
H.R. 2559
Passed the House
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental
Military Construction
June 26, 2003
contamination at base closure sites.
Appropriations Act for
(H.Rept. 108-173)
FY2004
Passed the Senate
July 11, 2003
(S. 1357, S.Rept. 108-82)
S. 14
H.R. 6 as amended passed Energy and environmental provisions included R&D and
Energy Policy Act of 2003
in lieu of S. 14.
production incentives; text from S. 791 incorporated as an
amendment bans MTBE in motor fuels, except in states
that specifically authorize its use, and increases
production and use of renewable fuels.
S. 195
Passed the Senate
Among other provisions establishes a renewable fuels
The Underground Storage
May 1, 2003
standard, bans MTBE, authorizes renewable energy
Tank Compliance Act of
(S.Rept. 108-13).
programs and establishes a greenhouse gas database.
2003
S. 515
Passed the Senate
Expands Ombudsman’s authority and independence.
The Ombudsman
May 21, 2003
Reauthorization Act
(S.Rept. 108-22).
S. 791
Reported by the Senate
Bans MTBE in motor fuels, except in states that
Reliable Fuels Act 2003
Environment and Public
specifically authorize its use, addresses MTBE
Works Committee
contamination, and increases production and use of
June 3, 2003
renewable fuels. Similar provisions incorporated in S. 14,
(S.Rept. 108-57)
June 5 (S.Amdt. 850) and the Senate version of H.R. 6,
July 31, 2003.
S. 1039
Ordered reported by
Authorizes funds to wastewater utilities for vulnerability
The Wastewater Treatment
Senate Environment and
assessments.
Works Security Act of
Public Works Committee
2003
May 15, 2003.
S. 1050
Passed by the Senate
Among major environmental provisions, authorizes
National Defense
May 22, 2003
funding for environmental cleanup, provides greater
Authorization Act for
(S.Rept. 108-46)
compliance flexibility for DOD under the Endangered
FY2004
Incorporated into H.R.
Species Act, and requires a study of perchlorate exposure,
1588 as a substitute
which are similar to H.R. 1588. Unlike the House bill,
amendment and passed by also requires a survey of perchlorate contamination on
the Senate
military installations. Does not include House provisions
June 4, 2003.
regarding the Marine Mammal Protection Act or reporting
requirements regarding the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste
Disposal Act, and CERCLA.
CRS-16

---