Order Code IB10115
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated October 25, 2004
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
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Superfund and Brownfields
Surface Transportation and Environment
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles

---

IB10115
10-25-04
Environmental Protection Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief provides an overview of
The 108th Congress has taken, but in
the key environmental protection issues that
most cases not completed, action on legisla-
are receiving attention in the 108th Congress.
tion to address a number of other key issues,
The sections on specific issues reference more
including leaking underground storage tanks
detailed and extensive CRS reports. (This
that may contaminate water supplies; security
issue brief emphasizes pollution-related mat-
issues related to wastewater treatment and
ters; natural resource management issues are
chemical facilities; expanding authority for an
not included.)
EPA ombudsman; environmental concerns in

surface transportation reauthorization legisla-
Appropriations for the Environmental
tion; brownfields grants and tax breaks; envi-
Protection Agency (EPA) affect many of the
ronmental issues in comprehensive energy
programs and issues discussed in this issue
legislation; and defense cleanup and military
brief (e.g., funding for state environmental
environmental issues. These issues are dis-
programs, enforcement, water infrastructure
cussed in this report, along with others includ-
projects and many others); thus, EPA’s fund-
ing issues involving the Clean Air Act, Clean
ing is an issue of perennial interest. At the
Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and
beginning of the second session, Congress
alternative fuels and vehicles.
completed consideration of a consolidated
appropriations act (P.L. 108-199, H.R. 2673),
The status of committee and floor action
which provided $8.37 billion for EPA in
on environmental legislation is shown in
FY2004.
Table 1 at the end of this issue brief. Bills
receiving congressional action include the
Later in the session, the House and Sen-
conference report on the energy bill, H.R. 6;
ate Appropriations Committees reported their
the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, S.
respective versions of the VA-HUD and
2550; the Water Quality Financing Act of
Independent Agencies appropriations bill for
2003, H.R. 1560; the Underground Storage
FY2005 (H.R. 5041 and S. 2825), which
Tank Compliance Act of 2003, S. 195; the
includes funding for EPA. H.R. 5041 (H.Rept.
Ombudsman Reauthorization Act, S. 515; the
108-674) would provide $7.75 billion for
Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement
EPA, whereas S. 2825 (S.Rept. 108-353)
Act, H.R. 239; the Chemical Facility Security
would provide $8.50 billion. Most of the
Act, S. 994; the POPs, LRTAP POPs, and PIC
difference in funding between the two bills is
Implementation Act of 2003, S. 1486; the
due to higher amounts in S. 2825 for waste-
Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of
water infrastructure projects and the cleanup
2003, H.R. 866 and S. 1039; the National
of Superfund sites. The Administration had
Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L.
requested $7.79 billion, $577 million less than
108-136); and the conference agreement on
the FY2004 appropriation. A continuing
the National Defense Authorization Act for
resolution (P.L. 108-309) extends funding at
FY2005, H.R. 4200, H.Rept. 108-767. P.L.
FY2004 levels through November 20, 2004,
108-136 and the conference agreement on
while Congress continues work on appropria-
H.R. 4200 include environmental provisions
tions.
that have been contentious.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10115
10-25-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The House Appropriations Committee reported the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies
appropriations bill for FY2005 (H.R. 5041, H.Rept. 108-674) on September 9, 2004,
proposing $7.75 billion for EPA. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version
of the bill (S. 2825, S.Rept. 108-353) on September 21, 2004, proposing $8.50 billion for
EPA. Most of the difference in funding between the two bills is due to higher amounts in
S. 2825 for wastewater infrastructure projects and the cleanup of Superfund sites. A
continuing resolution (P.L. 108-309) extends funding at FY2004 levels through November
20, 2004, while Congress continues work on appropriations.
The President signed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L.
108-287) on August 5, 2004, which provides funding for cleanup of contamination on active
installations and former military lands, as well as other environmental activities. The
President also signed the conference agreement on the Military Construction Appropriations
Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4837, H.Rept. 108-773) on October 13, 2004, which provides funding
for environmental cleanup at base closure sites. In addition to appropriations, the House and
Senate passed the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2005 (H.R. 4200, H.Rept. 108-767) on October 9, 2004, clearing the measure for the
President. It includes authorization of funding for cleanup and other environmental activities
on military lands and for cleanup at former nuclear weapons sites.
On October 7, 2004, the House agreed to the conference report on H.R. 4520, a
corporate tax bill; the Senate approved the report on October 11, 2004. Among other
provisions, the bill would extend and modify existing tax incentives for ethanol, establish tax
credits for biodiesel production, and expand tax credits for electricity produced from
renewable resources. Conferees began meeting June 9, 2004, to resolve differences between
the House and Senate bills reauthorizing federal highway and transit programs, including
funding for air and water quality projects and other environmental activities. Extension
legislation passed on September 30, 2004, continuing funding for federal highway and transit
programs at FY2003 levels through May 2005; while Congress continues work on
reconciling differences on a comprehensive reauthorization bill.
Tax-related provisions encouraging brownfield cleanups were included in the Working
Families Family Relief Act (P.L. 108-311, H.R. 1308, H.Rept. 108-696), which passed on
October 4, 2004. Tax-related provisions were also included in the American Jobs Creation
Act (H.R. 4520, H.Rept. 108-755), which Congress passed on October 11, 2004. The House
and Senate have passed legislation (on September 29, 2004, and October 11, 2004,
respectively) to reauthorize the National Estuary Program (H.R. 4731). Table 1 at the end
of this issue brief shows congressional action on environmentally related bills.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The 108th Congress has acted on a variety of disparate environmental measures; some
of these represent proposals or issues that had been under consideration in the 107th
Congress and earlier. In general, environmental issues have not been high on the
congressional agenda relative to other matters, and prospects for action on major
CRS-1

---

IB10115
10-25-04
environmental issues, many of which are contentious, are limited — in part due to the short
time remaining in the 108th Congress.
Environmental issues considered by Congress tend to fall into several major categories:
(1) funding issues — whether funding levels are adequate and focused on appropriate
priorities; (2) expanding, renewing, or refocusing specific environment programs; (3)
environmental issues that are important elements of other major areas of concern, such as
energy, defense, or transportation programs; and more recently, (4) terrorism and infra-
structure protection in areas such as wastewater and chemical facilities.
Bills have been passed by one or both houses of Congress to address several topics,
including security at sewage treatment facilities; MTBE contamination of groundwater from
leaking underground storage tanks; brownfields; and defense and environment. Other
measures under consideration include the comprehensive energy bill, which contains
provisions affecting several environmental laws, as well as legislation to reauthorize federal
highway and transit programs (which includes environmental concerns).
Other major issues on the environmental protection agenda of the 108th Congress
include consideration of the Administration’s “Clear Skies” proposal concerning emissions
from electric power plants, continuing interest in energy conservation, and legislation
concerning treaties controlling certain persistent pesticide and other pollutants. Also under
consideration have been oversight of various programs, including New Source Review
regulations implementing provisions of the Clean Air Act. All of these are discussed in the
sections below. Table 1 at the end of this issue brief provides a summary of action on a wide
array of environmental bills in the 108th Congress.
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. In addition, demands for or constraints on
funding programs are likely to continue to stimulate legislative action.
The discussion of the major environmental protection issues below focuses on selected
major issues and 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
(By David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390)
The most controversial issues for the FY2005 budget of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) have been the adequacy of funding for (1) federal assistance to states for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects; (2) cleanup of hazardous waste sites
under the Superfund program; and (3) scientific research on human health effects, upon
which pollution control standards are based. The President’s FY2005 budget request includes
$7.79 billion for EPA, $577 million less than the FY2004 appropriation of $8.37 billion.
CRS-2

---

IB10115
10-25-04
The requested decrease is mostly due to a reduction in funding for scientific research and
water infrastructure projects, many of which were congressionally mandated projects that
received earmarked funding in FY2004. Although the Administration has proposed an
overall decrease for EPA’s funding, there would be a $124 million increase for the Superfund
program.
The new fiscal year began on October 1, 2004, without final action on FY2005
appropriations for EPA and numerous other federal agencies. A continuing resolution (P.L.
108-309) extends funding at FY2004 levels through November 20, 2004, while Congress
continues work on appropriations. Thus far, the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees have reported their respective versions of the Veterans Affairs, Housing and
Urban Development (VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for FY2005
(H.R. 5041 and S. 2825), which includes funding for EPA. H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674)
would provide $7.75 billion for EPA, whereas S. 2825 (S.Rept. 108-353) would provide
$8.50 billion. Most of the difference in funding between the two bills is due to higher
amounts in S. 2825 for wastewater infrastructure projects and the cleanup of Superfund sites.
H.R. 5041 would provide the Administration’s request of $850 million for the clean
water State Revolving Fund (SRF) to provide federal assistance for wastewater infrastructure
projects. S. 2825 would provide $1.35 billion, the same as the FY2004 appropriation.
Although there is a $500 million difference between the two bills for the clean water SRF,
both would provide similar amounts for the SRF that provides federal assistance for drinking
water infrastructure projects, $845 million in H.R. 5041 and $850 million in S. 2825. In
addition to the SRFs, H.R. 5041 would provide $323 million in earmarked funding for grants
to specific communities for drinking water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure
projects, the same as the FY2004 appropriation. S. 2825 would provide $117 million for
such grants. As in recent fiscal year budget requests, the Administration did not request any
funding for these projects for FY2005.
For EPA’s scientific research activities, H.R. 5041 would provide $729 million (prior
to transfers), whereas S. 2825 would provide $758 million. Both amounts are more than the
Administration’s request of $689 million, but are less than the FY2004 appropriation of $782
million. Some scientists have expressed opposition to decreasing funding for scientific
research, arguing that critical areas of knowledge needed for public policy decisions on
controlling pollution would be compromised. The Administration has countered that its
requested decrease in funding was due to cost savings from consolidating and realigning
certain research areas, and that it would maintain research in key areas needed for the
development of pollution control regulations.
For the cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program, H.R. 5041
would provide $1.26 billion (prior to transfers), the same as the FY2004 appropriation. S.
2825 would provide the Administration’s request of $1.38 billion. Some Members have
advocated an increase to ensure protection of human health and the environment, whereas
other Members support steady funding and argue that the current pace of cleanup is adequate.
The source of funding for the Superfund program has also been an issue. Both H.R. 5041
and S. 2825 would authorize the use of general Treasury revenues to entirely support their
respective funding levels, if sufficient funds are not available in the Superfund Trust Fund,
which essentially has been expended since the end of FY2003, as the taxing authority for it
CRS-3

---

IB10115
10-25-04
expired in 1995. (For more information on these and other EPA appropriations issues, see
CRS Report RL32441, Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for FY2005.)
Clean Air Issues
(By Jim McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225)
The most prominent air quality issue in recent months has been what to do about
emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed
standards for mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions from such plants. The
proposed mercury standards have been particularly controversial, as critics contend they
should be more stringent; EPA’s proposal is based on an assertion that technology to achieve
more than a 30% reduction in mercury emissions cannot be implemented until 2018, an
assertion widely disputed. (For additional information on this and other clean air issues, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10107, Clean Air Act Issues in the 108th Congress. For additional
information on mercury, see CRS Report RL31881, Mercury Emissions to the Air.)
Legislation has also been proposed 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/S. 1844) proposes to replace numerous existing Clean Air Act requirements with a
national cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Senators
Jeffords and Carper, and Representatives Sweeney, Waxman, and Bass have all introduced
bills that are more stringent than Clear Skies; some of these would regulate carbon dioxide
in addition to the other three pollutants.
Controversy has also arisen over EPA’s proposed and promulgated changes to the Clean
Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) requirements. NSR requires installation of best
available emission controls when power plants and other major facilities are modified. Since
December 31, 2002, EPA has promulgated several changes to streamline (and, many argue,
weaken) the NSR requirements. On January 22, 2003, the Senate approved an amendment
to H.J.Res. 2 that directed the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the NSR
changes. The President signed the bill, with the amendment, on February 20, 2003 (P.L.
108-7). The study began in May 2004, with an expected completion date of December 2005.
(For additional information on new source review, see CRS Report RS21608, Clean Air and
New Source Review.)
The conference report on the energy bill (H.R. 6), which came to the House and Senate
floor for action the week of November 17, 2003, contained several Clean Air Act provisions.
Most of these are also contained in S. 2095, a revised version of the bill introduced February
12, 2004, and in H.R. 4503, which passed the House on June 15, 2004. Most of the air
provisions concern the gasoline additives MTBE and ethanol, used to meet Clean Air Act
requirements that reformulated gasoline (RFG) sold in the nation’s worst ozone
nonattainment areas contain at least 2% oxygen, to improve combustion. MTBE has
contaminated ground water in several states. All three bills would ban the use of MTBE as
a fuel additive nationwide, except in states that specifically authorize its use, after December
31, 2014; repeal the requirement that RFG contain oxygen; provide a major new stimulus to
the use of ethanol; authorize $2 billion in grants to assist merchant MTBE production
facilities in converting to the production of other fuel additives; and authorize funds for
MTBE cleanup. H.R. 6 and H.R. 4503 would also provide a “safe harbor” from product
CRS-4

---

IB10115
10-25-04
liability lawsuits for producers of MTBE and renewable fuels; S. 2095 would not. (For
additional information, see CRS Report RL31912, Renewable Fuels and MTBE.)
Clean Water Act
(By Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy, 7-7227)
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; for background on the Clean Water Act, see
CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law.)
Legislation to authorize funding for clean water infrastructure projects has been a focus
of attention in the 108th 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 October 7, 2004, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
reported legislation to authorize $20 billion over five years for the act’s State Revolving
Fund (SRF) program that assists municipal wastewater treatment projects (S. 2550). In July
2003 a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee subcommittee had approved
similar legislation (H.R. 1560). Both bills add provisions allowing states to offer additional
subsidization to disadvantaged communities and longer loan repayment periods. They differ
in a number of respects, such as how to revise the formula for state-by-state allotment of SRF
grants and whether to apply prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act to projects
that receive SRF funding (in S. 2550 only). (For information, see CRS Report RL32503,
Water Infrastructure Financing Legislation: Comparison of S. 2550 and H.R. 1560.)
Future prospects for this legislation are uncertain for several reasons, including
controversies over the Davis-Bacon Act, Administration opposition to funding levels in the
bills, and limited legislative time remaining in the 108th Congress. Water infrastructure
funding also is an issue in the context of budget and appropriations, because the President’s
FY2005 budget request seeks $492 million less in Clean Water Act assistance for next year
($850 million total) than Congress provided in FY2004 appropriations. Final action on
appropriations legislation is anticipated to occur in November, following the election. In
addition, the House and Senate passed legislation in late September and October 2004 to
reauthorize the National Estuary Program (H.R. 4731), and the House passed legislation to
authorize grants for wastewater utilities to assess the vulnerability of their facilities to
possible terrorist attack in May 2003 (H.R. 866). The Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee reported a similar bill (S. 1039), also in May 2003 (see Table 1 for relevant
numbers).
CRS-5

---

IB10115
10-25-04
Safe Drinking Water
(By Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937)
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal statute for regulating the
quality of water provided by public water systems. Key issues in the 108th Congress include
the availability of funding for infrastructure projects needed to comply with drinking water
standards, and the contamination of drinking water by specific contaminants, including
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and perchlorate (the main ingredient in solid rocket fuel).
(See MTBE discussion in the section below on “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.”)
Also, high lead levels in Washington DC’s tap water have raised questions about the
adequacy of, and compliance with, EPA’s lead in drinking water rule. H.R. 4268/S. 2377
would strengthen lead regulation. (See CRS Report RS21831, Lead in Drinking Water:
Washington, D.C. Issue and Broader Regulatory Implications.)
Several bills address drinking water contamination by perchlorate, a contaminant that
has been found in ground or surface water in 33 states but is not regulated under SDWA.
The Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136) directed
the DOD to provide for independent health studies of perchlorate in drinking water. The
DOD FY2004 Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-87) directed DOD with EPA to conduct a study
of perchlorate groundwater pollution that threatens drinking water and irrigation water
supplies in the Southwest. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005, H.R. 4200,
includes a “Sense of Congress” that DOD should develop a plan for remediating perchlorate
contamination resulting from DOD activities when the contamination poses a human health
hazard and continue evaluating contaminated sites, even in the absence of a drinking water
standard. H.R. 2123, H.R. 5344, and S. 502 would require EPA to issue a drinking water
standard for perchlorate. H.R. 2123 and S. 820 would direct EPA to carry out a loan
program to help water suppliers meet perchlorate standards. Data gaps regarding the health
risks of exposure to low levels of perchlorate have slowed EPA’s efforts to set a standard for
this contaminant. In March 2003, EPA, DOD, and other agencies asked the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review EPA’s draft risk assessment on perchlorate and to
advise EPA on questions related to that assessment. The NAS is scheduled to complete this
review in January 2005.
A perennial issue concerns the ability of water systems to improve infrastructure to
comply with drinking water regulations and to ensure the provision of a safe water supply.
The 1996 SDWA Amendments authorized a drinking water state revolving loan fund
program to help systems finance projects needed to meet SDWA standards and to address
health risks. Since FY1997, Congress has provided $6.9 billion for this program, including
$845 million for FY2004. However, a large funding gap is expected to grow as systems act
to comply with new standards and repair aging infrastructure. The Administration requested
$850 million for FY2005; the House and Senate appropriations committees recommend $845
million and $850 million, respectively. Several water infrastructure funding bills have been
introduced that emphasize providing assistance to small systems. H.R. 3382 and S. 1432
would establish a grant program to help small communities comply with SDWA. Also, on
October 7, 2004, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 2550
(S.Rept. 108-386), a water infrastructure financing bill that would increase funding for the
DWSRF and establish a small system grant program. It also addresses lead contamination
and directs the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a nationwide assessment of sites
contaminated with perchlorate.
CRS-6

---

IB10115
10-25-04
Drinking water security issues were addressed by the 107th Congress in the Bioterrorism
Preparedness Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188), which amended SDWA to require community
water systems to conduct vulnerability assessments and prepare emergency response plans.
In the 108th Congress, attention has focused on implementation of these provisions and other
efforts to improve water security, as well as the adequacy of funding to support these efforts.
(For more information, see CRS Report RL31294, Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking
Water: EPA and Congressional Actions and CRS Issue Brief IB10118, Safe Drinking Water
Act: Implementation and Issues.)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(By Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937)
In 1984, Congress established a leak prevention, detection, and cleanup program under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to address a national problem of
leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) that store petroleum or hazardous chemicals.
In 1986, Congress created the 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 is that many states have not dedicated, or have lacked, adequate resources to
fully enforce UST regulations. A related issue concerns the discovery of methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) leaks at thousands of LUST sites and in many water supplies. This gasoline
additive, used to reduce air pollution from vehicles, is very water soluble and spreads
quickly. Thus, MTBE leaks are more costly to clean up than conventional gasoline leaks.
The 108th Congress has addressed this issue, particularly through three broad energy
bills: H.R. 6 (the conference report (H.Rept. 108-375) was approved by the House in
November 2003); S. 2095 (now on the Senate calendar); and H.R. 4503 (passed by the House
in June 2004). These bills would strengthen leak prevention provisions of the UST regulatory
program and broaden the uses of the LUST Trust Fund. They adopt the language of H.R.
3335, the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2003, which is similar to Senate-
passed S. 195 (S.Rept. 108-13). The bills all add new tank inspection and operator training
requirements; prohibit fuel delivery to ineligible tanks; authorize states to use LUST funds
to help tank owners pay cleanup costs in cases of financial hardship; and allow LUST funds
to be used to enforce leak prevention and detection requirements. The energy bills and H.R.
3335 authorize appropriations from the Trust Fund of $200 million for each of FY2004
through FY2008 for remediating tank leaks generally, and another $200 million each year
for responding to leaks containing oxygenated fuel additives (e.g., MTBE and ethanol). H.R.
6, H.R. 4503, and S. 2095 phase out MTBE and remove the Clean Air Act’s oxygen content
requirement for reformulated gasoline, which had prompted the increased use of MTBE.
H.R. 6 and H.R. 4503 provide a product liability safe harbor for MTBE and renewable fuels;
S. 2095 does not. Several other bills, including H.R. 1122 and H.R. 2136, also would
authorize appropriations from the Trust Fund for responding to MTBE leaks. H.R. 3940 and
S. 2201 focus on leak prevention by requiring secondary containment for tank systems
installed near water supplies. (See also CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks: Program Status and Issues.)
CRS-7

---

IB10115
10-25-04
Superfund and Brownfields
(By Mark Reisch, Analyst in Environmental Policy, 7-7255)
The Superfund and brownfield programs are the principal federal efforts to clean up
hazardous waste sites. Three provisions have been enacted in the 108th Congress. The
brownfields tax incentive, which aids property developers, and which expired on December
31, 2003, was reinstated retroactively for two years (to December 31, 2005) by P.L. 108-311
(H.R. 1308, H.Rept. 108-696), which the president signed on October 4, 2004. And the
American Jobs Creation Act (H.R. 4520, H.Rept. 108-755), which passed Congress on
October 11, 2004, contains two brownfield provisions. One authorizes tax-exempt facility
bonds for “green building and sustainable design projects” that include a brownfield and
meet other requirements. The other allows tax-exempt entities to invest in the cleanup and
redevelopment of brownfields without incurring unrelated business income tax when they
sell the property.
A continuing controversial issue is the financing of Superfund activities. The taxes that
originally fed the Superfund trust fund expired in 1995, and the fund is empty.
Appropriations are now entirely from the general fund of the Treasury. Four efforts in the
108th Congress to reinstate the Superfund taxes or to increase Superfund funding have been
defeated. (See CRS Report RL31410, Superfund Taxes or General Revenues: Future
Funding Options for the Superfund Program.)
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2535
(H.Rept. 108-242), passed the House on October 21, 2003. Among other things, it would
make brownfield sites eligible for certain EDA grants and would establish a demonstration
program for “brightfield” sites (brownfields that are redeveloped using solar energy
technologies). H.R. 239 (H.Rept. 108-22) was reported on March 5, 2003. It would remove
the connection between HUD’s brownfield program and the department’s Section 108 loan
guarantees, making the grants more obtainable by a larger number of cities, particularly
smaller ones.
The Ombudsman Reauthorization Act, S. 515 (S.Rept. 108-50), passed the Senate on
May 21, 2003. It would provide the EPA ombudsman increased independence and authority
regarding Superfund and brownfields, as well as EPA’s solid waste, leaking underground
storage tank, oil spill, and chemical emergency preparedness and prevention programs. (Also
see CRS Issue Brief IB10114, Brownfields and Superfund Issues in the 108th Congress.)
Surface Transportation and Environment
(By Linda Luther, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-6852)
Both the House and Senate have passed bills that would reauthorize surface
transportation programs for FY2004-FY2009 and include environmental provisions. These
programs involve federal highway, highway safety, and transit programs undertaken by the
U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Senate bill (S. 1072), the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), passed on February
12, 2004. The House passed its bill (H.R. 3550), the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (TEA-LU), on April 2, 2004. The bills are currently in conference.
CRS-8

---

IB10115
10-25-04
During the reauthorization process, certain environmental issues have garnered
significant attention from both Members of Congress and interested stakeholders (e.g., state
transportation agencies, transportation construction organizations, and environmental
groups). This attention is due to both the impact that surface transportation projects can have
on the environment and the impact that compliance with environmental requirements can
have on project delivery.
Both the House and Senate bills include many provisions that relate to the environment.
Generally, the provisions do one of the following: authorize funding to eliminate, control,
mitigate, or minimize regulated environmental impacts associated with a surface
transportation program or project; or specify procedures required to be undertaken to comply
with certain environmental requirements. In particular, both bills include provisions that
would change the procedures DOT would be required to follow to comply with the Clean Air
Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (For information on these issues,
see CRS Report RL32454, Environmental Provisions in Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Legislation: SAFETEA (S. 1072) and TEA-LU (H.R. 3550), by Linda Luther;
CRS Report RL32106, Transportation Conformity Under the Clean Air Act: In Need of
Reform? by James McCarthy; and CRS Report RL32032, Streamlining Environmental
Reviews of Highway and Transit Projects: Analysis of SAFETEA and Recent Legislative
Activities, by Linda Luther.)
Authorization legislation for FY1998-FY2003, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178), expired on September 30, 2003. In accordance with
a series of extension bills, all existing surface transportation programs continue to operate
according to provisions of TEA-21 while Congress continues to consider reauthorization
proposals. The most recent extension (P.L. 108-310, H.R. 5183) runs until May 31, 2005.
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
(By David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390)
Several environmental issues associated with military installations and former nuclear
weapons sites have received attention in the 108th Congress. Among the most prominent
issues have been the adequacy, cost, and pace of environmental cleanup, and whether
additional environmental exemptions are needed to preserve military training capabilities.
The first session of the 108th Congress enacted several bills that authorized and appropriated
funding for cleanup and other environmental activities conducted by the Department of
Defense (DOD) at military installations, as well as cleanup at former nuclear weapons sites
performed by the Department of Energy (DOE). (See Table 1 for a list of these bills.) In the
first session, Congress also approved exemptions from certain requirements of the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136, H.R. 1588), which had been controversial.
(For further discussion, refer to CRS Report RL32183, Defense Cleanup and Environmental
Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2004. )
The second session has focused on authorization and appropriation of funding for
FY2005. Several bills have received action to date, including H.R. 4200, H.R. 4613, H.R.
4614, H.R. 4837, S. 2400, and S. 2674. A continuing resolution (P.L. 108-309) extends
funding at FY2004 levels through November 20, 2004, for activities in appropriations bills
that have not yet been enacted. (See Table 1.) Among the environmental issues regarding
CRS-9

---

IB10115
10-25-04
DOD’s FY2005 request were whether to provide additional environmental exemptions for
military training exercises, as proposed by the Administration. These exemptions would
remove DOD from the responsibility of complying with certain requirements of the Clean
Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). DOD’s proposal has
been controversial among Members of Congress, the states, and environmental organizations
due to concerns about the weakening of environmental protection and the lack of data to
justify the need for the exemptions. None of the above defense authorization or
appropriations bills for FY2005 contains the Administration’s requested exemptions, either
as proposed or in modified form.
Another prominent issue in the FY2005 debate has been whether to provide DOE with
the authority to classify certain high-level radioactive wastes at former nuclear weapons sites
in a manner that would permit these wastes to be permanently disposed of on-site in the
states of Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina. These wastes are currently stored in
underground tanks. DOE’s proposed disposal method would be to seal some of these wastes
in the tanks with a cement “grout.” However, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires all of
the wastes to be removed from the tanks and disposed of in a centralized geologic repository,
such as Yucca Mountain. DOE has asked for the authority to leave some of the wastes in the
tanks, as a means to lower costs and speed the closure of the tanks.
DOE’s proposal has been controversial among Members of Congress, the states, and
environmental organizations due to concern about the possibility of tank wastes leaking and
migrating into the soil and groundwater. Some of the tanks are already known or suspected
to have leaked. The conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2005 (H.R. 4200, H.Rept. 108-767) would provide targeted authority for DOE to grout
some of the tank wastes in place as a cost-saving measure in South Carolina and Idaho,
subject to oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state approval. This
authority would not apply to the tank wastes at the Hanford site in the state of Washington,
some of which have leaked into the Columbia River. Prior to conference, the Senate had
approved similar authority only for South Carolina, and the House had not approved such
authority for any state. (For more information, see CRS Report RL32537, Defense Cleanup
and Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2005).
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
(By Brent Yacobucci, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-9662)
The development of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles has 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 such vehicles is currently cost-prohibitive, and many technical and cost barriers are
associated with producing, storing, and delivering these alternative fuels. Therefore, there
is interest in Congress and the Administration to support vehicle and fuel development, and
promote their entry into the marketplace.
Congress is currently considering comprehensive energy legislation. The conference
report on H.R. 6 (H.Rept. 108-375) would authorize increased funding for hydrogen and fuel
cell research, establish tax credits for the purchase of hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles,
CRS-10

---

IB10115
10-25-04
and promote biofuels. H.R. 6 has stalled in the Senate, and S. 2095 was introduced in the
Senate as an alternative to H.R. 6. Floor consideration of S. 2095 began on April 5, 2004.
It is unclear when further action will be taken on the bill. In the House, on June 15, 2004,
H.R. 4503 was passed. This bill is identical to the H.R. 6 conference report. H.R. 4503 has
been referred to the Senate, but no action has been taken as of this writing. A key component
of the energy bill is the renewable fuels standard (RFS). All three versions of the bill would
require the use of 5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. Further, H.R. 6 and H.R.
4503 would exempt blenders of renewable fuels and MTBE (another gasoline additive) from
defective product liability; S. 2095 does not contain this exemption. This provision has been
highly controversial, and has been cited as one of the key impediments to passage of the bill.
The 108th Congress is also in the process of reauthorizing the highway authorization
bill, TEA-21 (see above discussion on Environmental Issues and Surface Transportation).
Among other provisions, the House and Senate bills (H.R. 3550 and S. 1072) would
reauthorize funding for various projects, including advanced technology and alternative fuel
transit buses.
On October 7, 2004, the House approved the conference report on H.R. 4520, a
corporate tax bill; the Senate approved the report on October 11. Among other provisions,
the bill eliminates the existing tax exemption for ethanol-blended gasoline and replaces it
with a refundable tax credit. The bill also establishes tax credits for the production and use
of biodiesel fuel. (For further discussion, see CRS Issue Brief IB10128, Alternative Fuels
and Vehicles: Issues in Congress; and CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.)
CRS-11

---

IB10115
10-25-04
Table 1. Action on Environmental Legislation in the 108th Congress
Bill Status
Purpose
Energy and Environment / MTBE
H.R. 6
Passed House April 11, 2003
Among environmental provisions, amends the Clean Air Act’s
Energy Policy Act of 2003
(H.Rept. 108-65). Amended and
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, and includes provisions for
passed Senate July 31, 2003 (with R&D, energy tax incentives, MTBE cleanup, underground storage
language from H.R. 4, 107th
tank regulation and establishes a renewable fuels standard.
Cong.). House Conference Report Includes “safe harbor” from product liability lawsuits for MTBE
Nov. 18, 2003
and renewable fuel producers.
(H.Rept. 108-375).
H.R. 4503
Passed House June 15, 2004
Identical to conference version of H.R. 6. Among environmental
Energy Policy Act of 2004
provisions, amends the Clean Air Act’s reformulated gasoline
(RFG) program, and includes provisions for R&D, energy tax
incentives, MTBE cleanup, underground storage tank regulation
and establishes a renewable fuels standard
H.R. 4520
House agreed to conference
Contains tax credits for electricity from renewable sources, for
American Jobs Creation Act
report October 7, 2004.
ethanol and for biodiesel.
of 2004
Senate agreed to conference
report October 11, 2004.
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 (see above).
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. 791
Reported Senate Environment
Bans MTBE in motor fuels, except in states that specifically
Reliable Fuels Act of 2003
and Public Works Committee
authorize its use, addresses MTBE contamination, and increases
June 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. 1637
Passed Senate May 11, 2004
Contains tax provisions from H.R. 6, including incentives for
Jumpstart Our Business
Inserted into H.R. 4520
renewable energy, alternative fuels, and petroleum and natural gas
Strength (JOBS) Act
July 15, 2004
development.
S. 2095
Introduced February 11, 2004.
Among environmental provisions, amends the Clean Air Act’s
Energy Policy Act of 2003
Taken up on Senate floor for
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, and includes provisions for
debate March 5, 2004
R&D, energy tax incentives, MTBE cleanup, underground storage
tank regulation and establishes a renewable fuels standard. Does
not include “safe harbor” provisions.
Water Quality
H.R. 784
Reported House Transportation
Reauthorizes appropriations for sewer overflow control grants.
Water Quality Investment Act and Infrastructure Committee
of 2003
Sept. 13, 2004
(H.Rept. 108-675)
H.R. 866, Wastewater
Passed House May 7, 2003
Authorizes funds for wastewater utilities to conduct vulnerability
Treatment Works Security
(H.Rept. 108-33).
assessments.
Act of 2003
H.R. 1560
Reported House Transportation
Authorizes appropriations for Clean Water Act state water
The Water Quality Financing and Infrastructure Subcommittee
pollution control revolving funds (SRFs).
Act of 2003
on Water Resources and
Environment July 17, 2003.
CRS-12

---

IB10115
10-25-04
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 4470
Passed House
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the
To amend the Federal Water
October 7, 2004
authorization of appropriations for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Pollution Control Act to
(H.Rept. 108-676)
Restoration Program for fiscal years 2005 to 2010.
extend the authorization of
appropriations for the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin
Restoration Program from
FY2005 to FY2010.
H.R. 4688
Reported House Transportation
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize
To amend the Federal Water
and Infrastructure Committee
the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Pollution Control Act to
Sept. 13. 2004
reauthorize the Chesapeake
(H.Rept. 108-677)
Bay Program.
H.R. 4731
Passed House
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize
To amend the Federal Water
Sept. 29, 2004
the National Estuary Program.
Pollution Control Act to
(H.Rept. 108-678);
reauthorize the National
Passed Senate
Estuary Program.
October 11, 2004
S. 1039, Wastewater
Reported Senate
Authorizes funds for wastewater utilities to conduct vulnerability
Treatment Works Security
Environment and Public Works
assessments.
Act of 2003
Committee May 15, 2003
(S.Rept. 108-149).
S. 2550
Reported Senate
Authorizes appropriations to Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking
Water Infrastructure
Environment and Public Works
Water Act for State Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs).
Financing Act
Committee October 7, 2004
(S.Rept. 108-386)
Superfund / Brownfields
P.L. 108-311 (H.R. 1308)
Enacted
Reinstated the brownfields tax incentive, which aids property
Working Families Tax Relief October 4, 2004
developers.
Act
H.R. 239
Reported 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. 2535
Passed House Oct. 21, 2003
Among other things, makes brownfields eligible for certain EDA
Economic Development
(H.Rept. 108-242, Part I).
grants and establishes a demonstration program for “brightfields”
Administration
(brownfields redeveloped using solar energy technologies).
Reauthorization Act
H.R. 4520
Passed House October 7, 2004
Authorizes certain tax exempt facility bonds; and allows tax
American Jobs Creation Act
Passed Senate October 11, 2004
exempt entities to invest in brownfields without incurring
unrelated business income tax when they sell the property.
Environmental Protection Agency
P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673)
Enacted January 23, 2004
Funded EPA at $8.4 billion in FY2004.
Consolidated (Omnibus)
Conf. report filed Nov. 25, 2003
Appropriations Act FY2004
(H.Rept. 108-401).
P.L. 108-309 (H.J.Res. 107)
Enacted Sept. 30, 2004
Provides funding for EPA and other federal agencies at FY2004
Continuing Resolution
levels through November 20, 2004, while Congress continues
work on appropriations for FY2005.
P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2)
Enacted Feb. 20, 2003
Funded EPA at $8.1 billion in FY2003.
Omnibus FY2003
Conf. report filed Feb. 13, 2003
(H.Rept. 108-10)
CRS-13

---

IB10115
10-25-04
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 5041
Reported House Appropriations
House report would fund EPA at $7.8 billion in FY2005.
VA-HUD Appropriations
Committee
FY2005
September 9, 2004
(H.Rept. 108-674)
S. 2825 VA - HUD
Reported Sept. 21, 2004
Senate report would fund EPA at $8.5 billion in FY2005.
Appropriations FY2005
by Senate Appropriations
Committee
(S.Rept. 108-353)
H.R. 2861 VA-HUD
Passed House July 25, 2003
House version would have funded EPA at $8.0 billion; Senate
Appropriations FY2004
Passed Senate Nov. 18, 2003
version at $8.1 billion.
Included in P.L. 108-199.
S. 515, Ombudsman
Passed Senate May 21, 2003
Expands Ombudsman’s authority and independence.
Reauthorization Act
(S.Rept. 108-50)
Defense and Environment
P.L. 108-136 (H.R. 1588)
Enacted Nov. 24, 2003.
Among major environmental provisions, authorizes funding for
National Defense
Passed House Nov. 7, 2003
environmental cleanup, provides greater compliance flexibility for
Authorization Act for FY2004 Passed Senate Nov. 11, 2003
DOD under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal
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.
P.L. 108-132 ( H.R. 2559)
Enacted Nov. 22, 2003
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental contamination
Military Construction
at base closure sites. Requires DOD to submit report on
Appropriations Act FY2004
perchlorate contamination, and cleanup plans for these sites.
P.L. 108-87 (H.R. 2658)
Enacted Sept. 30, 2003
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental contamination
Department of Defense
on active military installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appropriations Act for
(FUDS), which were decommissioned prior to the base closure
FY2004
rounds that began in 1988. Requires DOD and EPA to conduct a
study of perchlorate groundwater contamination.
P.L. 108-137 (H.R. 2754)
Enacted Dec. 1, 2003
Provides funding for the management and cleanup of defense
Energy and Water
nuclear waste.
Development Appropriations
Act FY2004
P.L. 108-287 (H.R. 4613)
Enacted August 5, 2004
Would appropriate funding for cleanup and other environmental
Department of Defense
activities at active and former military installations. Does not
Appropriations Act for
include exemptions from the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and
FY2005
CERCLA, which DOD requested.
H.R. 4200
Conference filed October 8, 2004 Would authorize funding for cleanup and other environmental
National Defense
(H.Rept. 108-767)
activities at active, former, and closed military installations, and
Authorization Act for FY2005 Passed House and Senate
former nuclear weapons sites. Does not include exemptions from
October 9, 2004
the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, which DOD requested.
Provides authority for the permanent on-site disposal of high-level
radioactive wastes in storage tanks in South Carolina and Idaho,
which DOE requested.
H.R. 4837
Enacted October 13, 2004
Would appropriate funding for environmental cleanup at military
Military Construction
Passed House October 9, 2004
base closure sites. Does not include exemptions from the Clean
Appropriations Act for
Passed Senate October 11, 2004
Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, which DOD requested.
FY2005
Conference filed October 9, 2004
(H.Rept. 108- 773)
CRS-14

---

IB10115
10-25-04
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 4614
Passed House June 25, 2004
Would appropriate funding for the management of defense nuclear
Energy and Water
(H.Rept. 108-554)
waste and cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites. Would not
Development Appropriations
provide funding for the permanent on-site disposal of high-level
Act for FY2005
radioactive wastes in storage tanks in Washington, South Carolina,
and Idaho.
S. 2400
Passed Senate June 23, 2004
Would authorize funding for cleanup and other environmental
National Defense
(S.Rept. 108-260)
activities at active, former, and closed military installations, and
Authorization Act for FY2005 Inserted into H.R. 4200 as a
former nuclear weapons sites. Does not include exemptions from
substitute amendment
the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, which DOD requested.
Conferees appointed June 24,
Includes targeted authority for permanent on-site disposal of
2004
certain high-level radioactive wastes in storage tanks in South
Carolina only.
S. 2674
Reported by Senate
Would appropriate funding for environmental cleanup at military
Military Construction
Appropriations Committee July
base closure sites. Does not include exemptions from the Clean
Appropriations Act for
15, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-309)
Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, which DOD requested.
FY2005
Inserted in H.R. 4837 as a
substitute amendment and passed
instead
Transportation and Environment
P.L. 108-310 (H.R.5183)
Enacted Sept. 30, 2004
Extended funding for highway transit and safety programs until
Surface Transportation
May 31, 2005. Previous extensions were enacted under H.R.
Extension Act of 2004,
3087, H.R. 3850, H.R. 4219, H.R. 4635, and H.R. 4916.
Part V
H.R. 3550, Transportation
Passed House April 2, 2004
Among other provisions, amends the Clean Air Act conformity
Equity Act: A Legacy for
(H.Rept. 108-452)
provisions, specifies procedures to perform environmental reviews
Users
for transportation projects under NEPA, amends the DOT Act of
1966 regarding protection of historic sites , and specifies funding
levels for projects intended to improve air quality and mitigate
other environmental impacts.
S. 1072
Reported by Senate Environment Environmental provisions similar to H.R. 3550. In addition to
Safe, Accountable, Flexible
January 9, 2004
historic sites, amendments to the DOT Act of 1966 apply to
and Efficient Transportation
(S.Rept. 108-222)
publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl
Equity Act of 2003
Passed Senate Feb. 12, 2004
refuges.
(SAFETEA)
Other
S. 994
Reported by Senate Environment
Requires vulnerability assessments and security plans for facilities
Chemical Facilities Security
and Public Works Committee
handling large quantities of hazardous chemicals.
Act
May 11, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-261)
S. 1486
Reported by the Senate
Amends Toxic Substances Control Act and Federal Insecticide,
POPs, LRTAP POPs, and PIC Environment and Public Works
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act to authorize implementation of
Implementation Act of 2003
Committee April 29, 2004
three international agreements limiting manufacture, use, trade and
(S.Rept. 108-256)
disposal of certain persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
CRS-15

---