Order Code IB10115
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated October 9, 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

---

IB10115
10-09-03
Environmental Protection Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief provides an overview of
ing authority for an EPA ombudsman, envi-
some of the key environmental protection
ronmental concerns in surface transportation
issues that have been and are likely to con-
reauthorization legislation, brownfields grants,
tinue to be the focus of public and congressio-
environmental issues in comprehensive energy
nal attention. The individual sections below
legislation, and defense cleanup and mili-
on specific issues reference more detailed
tary/environment issues.
CRS reports.
These issues are discussed in this report,
The initial focus of the 108th Congress
along with other issues likely to be on the
was on finalizing FY2003 funding not com-
environmental agenda: Clean Air Act issues;
pleted by the 107th Congress. Appropriations
Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act;
for the Environmental Protection Agency
climate change; chemical plant security; and
(EPA) were among those unresolved, and a
alternative fuels and vehicles. (The major
number
of
controversial
environmental
emphasis in this issue brief is on pollution-
amendments were under debate as Congress
related issues; environmental issues focused
considered a consolidated appropriations act,
on natural resource management are not in-
H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7). As approved, it in-
cluded here.)
cluded $8.0 billion for EPA for FY2003.
Budgetary attention next turned to the FY2004
The status of committee and floor action
appropriations, for which the request for EPA
on environmental legislation is shown in
is $7.6 billion, or 5% less than approved for
Table 1 at the end of the issue brief. Bills
FY2003. The House approved $8.0 billion in
receiving congressional action include the
H.R. 2861, amended, on July 25 (H.Rept. 108-
Senate version of the House Energy bill, H.R.
235). The Senate Committee on appropria-
6; the Wastewater Treatment Works Security
tions approved $8.1 billion in S. 1584 (S.Rept.
Act of 2003, H.R. 866 and S. 1039; the Un-
108-143) on September 5, 2003. A continuing
derground Storage Tank Compliance Act of
resolution, P.L. 108-84 (H.J.Res. 69), funds
2003, S. 195; the Ombudsman Reauthoriza-
EPA activities at the FY2003 level of $8.08
tion Act, S. 515; the Brownfields Redevelop-
billion.
ment Enhancement Act, H.R. 239; and H.R.
1560, the Water Quality Financing Act of
A number of other key issues are likely to
2003. H.R. 1588, the National Defense Au-
see, or have seen, action in the 108th Congress,
thorization Act for 2004, in conference,
including leaking underground storage tanks
includes environmental provisions that have
that
may
contaminate
water
supplies,
been controversial.
wastewater treatment utility security, expand-
Congressional Research Service
˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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. A number
of climate and energy efficiency provisions were part of the Senate energy bill passed in late
July. The bill is in conference, and many expect that many of these provisions will be
modified or dropped. 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). The Senate Committee
on appropriations approved $8.1 billion in S. 1584 (S.Rept. 108-143) on September 5, 2003.
A continuing resolution, P.L. 108-84 (H.J.Res. 69), funds EPA activities at the FY2003 level
of $8.08 billion.
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.
CRS-1

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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
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). The
House-passed version reinstated some of the funds for the Clean Water State Revolving
CRS-2

---

IB10115
10-09-03
Fund, providing $1.25 billion rather than the $850 million requested. The House also
provided $180 million for targeted water infrastructure 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.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $8.1 billion in S. 1584 (S.Rept. 108-143)
on September 5. The Senate action also reinstated wastewater funds and included bill
language on Brownfields and off-road vehicle emissions. A continuing resolution, P.L. 108-
84 (H.J.Res. 69), funds EPA activities through October 2003 at the FY2003 level of $8.08
billion.
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. See CRS Issue Brief IB10125, The
Environmental Protection Agency’s FY2004 Budget, for further discussion.
[This section prepared by Martin R. Lee, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7260.]
Clean Air Issues
The most prominent air quality issue in recent months has been what to do about
emissions from coal-fired 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, Representative Waxman, and Representative Bass have
also introduced bills (S. 366, S. 843, H.R. 203, H.R. 2042, and H.R. 3093, respectively).
These bills are all more stringent than Clear Skies, and four of the five would regulate carbon
dioxide in addition to the other pollutants. Senate and House subcommittees have both held
hearings on the subject, but as of early October, markup had not been scheduled.
Controversy has also arisen over EPA’s proposed and promulgated 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. The EPA actions will make it easier
to modify these plants without adding emission controls. 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
CRS-3

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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 uniform national requirements regarding MTBE and its potential replacements
(principally ethanol). H.R. 6, the energy bill that passed the House 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. The Senate version of H.R. 6, which passed July 31, 2003, is generally similar; but
it would ban MTBE use in motor fuels 4 years after the date of enactment (except in states
that specifically authorize its use).
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 possible 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. As of mid-
October, Senator Domenici and Representative Tauzin had circulated a discussion draft on
several energy bill provisions. Climate change provisions, however, were not included in
the draft.
Other congressional action on climate change is proposed in the context of
multi-pollutant legislation. Four multi-pollutant bills introduced in the 108th Congress
include carbon dioxide among the emissions to be reduced: S. 366, introduced by Senator
CRS-4

---

IB10115
10-09-03
Jeffords, S. 843, introduced by Senator Carper, H.R. 2042, introduced by Representative
Waxman, and H.R. 3093, introduced by Representative Bass. S. 366 and H.R. 2042 would
require electricity generators to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 levels
by 2009 while S. 843 and H.R. 3093 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
CRS-5

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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
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 perchlorate, and the gasoline
additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and perchlorate. (See MTBE discussion in the
following section 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
CRS-6

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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 drinking water regulations and to ensure the
provision of a safe 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 has been introduced again in this Congress, including
S. 1432, which would establish a grant program to help small communities comply with
SDWA. 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.
The security of public water supplies also remains a concern for Congress. In the
Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188), the 107th Congress amended the
SDWA to require more than 8,400 community water systems to conduct vulnerability
assessments and prepare emergency response plans. The 108th Congress may be interested
in overseeing implementation of these new requirements 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
widespread problem of leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) 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 many states have lacked the resources to fully oversee and enforce UST regulations that
EPA phased in through 1998. A more recent issue concerns the discovery of methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE) leaks at thousands of LUST sites. This gasoline additive, used to reduce
CRS-7

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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 boosted congressional
interest in increasing Trust Fund appropriations to respond to MTBE contamination and to
enforce the leak prevention and detection program. The 107th Congress moved several LUST
and MTBE bills, but none were enacted.
The 108th Congress has continued efforts to address drinking water contamination 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. S. 195 authorizes appropriations
from the LUST Trust Fund for remediating MTBE contamination. Related bills, H.R. 2733
and H.R. 3231, have been introduced and would authorize LUST Fund appropriations for
remediating MTBE and other ether fuel leaks (any oxygenated fuel leaks under H.R. 3231).
All 3 bills include new inspection and operator training provisions. H.R. 3231 would require
secondary containment for new tanks.
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 and ethanol). H.R. 6 eliminates the oxygen content requirement in
the Clean Air Act for reformulated gasoline, which 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 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
CRS-8

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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).
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.
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.
CRS-9

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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.)
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
CRS-10

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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
Balancing surface transportation needs with environmental protection has long
been a challenge to states and local communities. The Department of Transportation
implements several programs designed to help mitigate the environmental impacts of surface
transportation. The most recent multi-year funding authorization for federal highway and
transit programs, including environmental activities, expired at the end of FY2003.
Reauthorization is a major issue for the 108th Congress.
The Administration’s
reauthorization proposal, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), was introduced by request (H.R. 2088 and S. 1072) in May
2003. To date, neither the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure nor the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has marked up a comprehensive
reauthorizing bill. The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-88, H.R.
3087) extends funding for federal highway and transit programs at FY2003 levels through
February 29, 2004, while Congress works on a comprehensive reauthorizing bill.
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 transit programs from FY1998 – FY2003. It set
aside $9 billion for air quality projects, including $8 billion for the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) to offset some of the emissions from
highway travel, as a means to assist states in complying with federal air quality standards.
The other $1 billion was authorized to assist local transit agencies in purchasing clean fuel
buses. TEA-21 also expanded eligibility under the Surface Transportation Program, and the
Transportation Enhancements set-aside within that program, to allow states to use federal
highway funds for mitigating water pollution from highway runoff. However, no specific
amount was set aside exclusively to address water quality needs. The law also authorized
funding for environmental research and the development of advanced vehicle technologies,
and it included several other provisions related to environmental protection. (CRS Report
RL32057, Highway and Transit Program Reauthorization: Environmental Protection Issues
and Legislation, analyzes key reauthorization issues.)
Reauthorization of the CMAQ program is likely to receive attention due to questions
about 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
CRS-11

---

IB10115
10-09-03
of the CMAQ program and continue its focus on reducing emissions from highway travel.
The bill would increase the program’s funding to nearly $8.9 billion over the next six years,
about $740 million above the previous authorization. Additional provisions would expand
eligibility for CMAQ projects, revise the program’s funding formula to ensure that states
with areas that do not meet stricter federal air quality standards receive greater funding, and
require further study of the program’s effectiveness to identify which types of projects offer
the greatest potential for reducing emissions. The bill also would provide tax benefits and
other incentives related to air quality, extend the time frame for a state to demonstrate that
its transportation plan conforms to its air quality plan, expand project eligibility for
mitigating water pollution, and authorize funding for new environmental research activities.
Another potential issue for reauthorization involves streamlining the environmental
review process for surface transportation projects. While TEA-21 required the Secretary of
Transportation to streamline this 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, and it 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 speed project approvals, others believe that the environment might be
compromised.
(See: CRS Report RL32032, Streamlining Environmental Reviews of
Highway and Transit Projects: Analysis of SAFETEA and Recent Legislative Activities.)
[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)
administers five programs to address environmental and conservation needs on 25 million
acres of land located on military installations.
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 key 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. The last of these issues has received increasing attention. While many
environmental laws 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 great number of training exercises that it conducts. DOD also argues
that the time limitations placed upon most exemptions are not compatible with many training
activities. Instead, DOD favors broader exemptions that would provide greater flexibility.
Some environmental organizations oppose broader exemptions and argue that their
CRS-12

---

IB10115
10-09-03
justification is insufficient. In March 2003, 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 has received significant attention in the debate over FY2004 defense
authorization legislation (H.R. 1588). As passed, both the House and Senate versions 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
addresses compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Neither bill includes DOD’s
proposals regarding the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, or CERCLA. However,
the House bill would require DOD to identify the extent to which these three statutes have
affected military readiness. Both bills also would require a study of the human health effects
of perchlorate, a substance commonly used in munitions propellants. Unlike the House bill,
the Senate bill would require DOD to submit a survey of perchlorate contamination on
military installations. Both bills also include many other environmental provisions, and they
would authorize nearly the same amount of total funding requested for cleaning up
contamination at DOD’s sites ($1.7 billion) and at DOE’s defense nuclear waste sites ($6.8
billion). Differences between the House and Senate bills will be resolved in conference.
While FY2004 defense authorization legislation has not been enacted to date, the
FY2004 appropriations bill for DOD (P.L. 108-87, H.R. 2658) has been signed into law. It
provides nearly $1.35 billion for environmental cleanup at current and former military
facilities, about $72 million more than requested, $63 million more than the House, and $28
million less than the Senate. The increase above the request and the House amount is
devoted to speeding cleanup at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), decommissioned prior
to the rounds of base closings that began in 1988. Cleanup at these sites has been criticized
for proceeding more slowly than at active installations, and states and local communities
have expressed increasing interest in speeding cleanup to ensure public safety.
The FY2004 appropriations bills for Military Construction (H.R. 2559), which would
fund cleanup at base closure sites, and for Energy and Water Development (H.R. 2754),
which would fund the management and cleanup of defense nuclear waste, have not been
signed into law. A continuing resolution (P.L. 108-84, H.J.Res. 69) provides funding through
October 31, 2003, while Congress works on final appropriations. As passed by the House and
Senate, H.R. 2559 would provide $370 million for base closure activities, including the
cleanup of contamination, the same as requested. As passed by the House, H.R. 2754 would
provide $6.75 billion for DOE’s defense nuclear waste management and cleanup
responsibilities. As passed by the Senate, the bill would provide $6.76 billion for these
activities. The Administration had requested $6.81 billion. Both the House and Senate
versions of H.R. 2754 would provide funding under a new account structure that DOE
requested as part of its cleanup reform initiative to speed cleanup and lower costs. However,
the House bill indicates concern that DOE has not successfully renegotiated all of its cleanup
agreements to the satisfaction of EPA and the states, in order to implement its proposed
reforms, and both bills indicate concern that DOE has understated the costs of some of its
cleanup acceleration projects.
CRS-13

---

IB10115
10-09-03
[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
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 Conference Committee on H.R.
6 has convened and negotiations on the bill are ongoing.
The 108th Congress will also likely debate reauthorization of the main transportation
authorization bill, TEA-21 (see above discussion on Environmental Issues and Surface
CRS-14

---

IB10115
10-09-03
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 House April 11, 2003
Among environmental provisions, amends the Clean Air Act’s
Omnibus Energy bill
(H.Rept. 108-65).
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, and includes provisions for
Amended and passed Senate
R&D, energy tax incentives, MTBE cleanup, establishes a
July 31, 2003 (with language from
renewable fuels standard, greenhouse gas database and an Office of
H.R. 4, 107th Congress).
National Climate Change Policy.
H.R. 239
Reported by House Financial
Makes HUD brownfield grants more accessible to small
Brownfields Redevelopment Services Committee March 5,
communities.
and Enhancement Act
2003 (H.Rept. 108-22).
H.R. 866
Passed House May 7, 2003
Authorizes funds to wastewater utilities for vulnerability
Wastewater Treatment
(H.Rept. 108-33).
assessments.
Works Security Act of 2003
H.R. 1560
Approved by House
Authorizes appropriations for Clean Water Act state water
The Water Quality
Transportation and Infrastructure
pollution control revolving funds (SRFs).
Financing Act of 2003
Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment July 17, 2003.
H.R. 1588
Passed by House May 22, 2003
Among major environmental provisions, authorizes funding for
National Defense
(H.Rept. 108-106).
environmental cleanup, provides greater compliance flexibility for
Authorization Act for
In conference with Senate (Senate
DOD under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal
FY2004
bill S. 1050).
Protection Act, requires 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 House Transportation Among other things, makes brownfields eligible for certain EDA
Economic Development
and Infrastructure Committee
grants, and establishes a demonstration program for “brightfields”
Administration
July 25, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-242,
(brownfields redeveloped using solar energy technologies).
Reauthorization Act
Part I.)
H.R. 2559
Passed House June 26, 2003
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental contamination
Military Construction
(H.Rept. 108-173).
at base closure sites.
Appropriations Act for
Passed Senate July 11, 2003
FY2004
(S. 1357, S.Rept. 108-82).
H.R. 2574
Passed House July 18, 2003
Provides funding for the management and cleanup of defense
Energy and Water
(H.Rept. 108-212).
nuclear waste.
Appropriations Act for
Passed Senate Sept. 16, 2003 (S.
FY2004
1424; S.Rept. 108-1050).
CRS-15

---

IB10115
10-09-03
H.R. 3087
Signed into law (P.L. 108-88)
Extends funding for federal highway and transit programs,
Surface Transportation
Sept. 30, 2003.
including air and water quality projects and other environmental
Extension Act of 2003
Passed House Sept. 24, 2003.
activities, through February 29, 2004.
Passed Senate Sept. 26, 2003.
S. 14
H.R. 6 as amended passed in lieu
Energy and environmental provisions included R&D and
Energy Policy Act of 2003
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 Senate May 1, 2003
Among other provisions establishes a renewable fuels standard,
Underground Storage Tank
(S.Rept. 108-13).
bans MTBE, authorizes renewable energy programs and
Compliance Act of 2003
establishes a greenhouse gas database.
S. 515
Passed Senate May 21, 2003
Expands Ombudsman’s authority and independence.
Ombudsman
(S.Rept. 108-22).
Reauthorization Act
S. 791
Reported by Senate Environment
Bans MTBE in motor fuels, except in states that specifically
Reliable Fuels Act 2003
and Public Works Committee June authorize its use, addresses MTBE contamination, and increases
3, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-57).
production and use of renewable fuels. Similar provisions
incorporated in S. 14, June 5 (S.Amdt. 850) and the Senate version
of H.R. 6, July 31, 2003.
S. 1039
Reported by Senate Environment
Authorizes funds to wastewater utilities for vulnerability
The Wastewater Treatment
and Public Works Committee May assessments.
Works Security Act of 2003 15, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-149).
S. 1050
Passed by Senate May 22, 2003
Among major environmental provisions, authorizes funding for
National Defense
(S.Rept. 108-46).
environmental cleanup, provides greater compliance flexibility for
Authorization Act for
Incorporated into H.R. 1588 as a
DOD under the Endangered Species Act, and requires a study of
FY2004
substitute amendment and passed
perchlorate exposure, which are similar to H.R. 1588. Unlike the
by Senate June 4, 2003.
House bill, also requires a survey of perchlorate contamination on
military installations. Does not include House provisions
regarding the Marine Mammal Protection Act or reporting
requirements regarding the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal
Act, and CERCLA.
CRS-16

---