Order Code IB10146
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 109th Congress
Updated October 25, 2005
Coordinated by Susan R. 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
Energy and Environment: The Energy Bill
Clean Air Issues
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Superfund and Brownfields
Surface Transportation and Environment
Chemicals: Security and Regulatory Issues
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles

---

IB10146
10-25-05
Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Environmental protection concerns span
Related Agencies, P.L. 109-54 (H.R. 2361,
a wide variety of issues, including clean air,
H.Rept. 109-188). Title II of P.L. 109-54
water quality, chemical security, and environ-
provides $7.73 billion for the Environmental
mental aspects of other major issue areas such
Protection Agency (EPA), subject to an
as energy, transportation and defense. This
across-the-board rescission of 0.476%. The
issue brief provides an overview of key envi-
total FY2006 EPA appropriation includes an
ronmental issues receiving attention in the
additional $80 million in unobligated funds
109th Congress. Most recently, the attention to
“rescinded” from past appropriations. The
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita involved a num-
President’s FY2006 budget request included
ber of environmental concerns, and legislative
$7.52 billion for EPA; Congress appropriated
proposals on such matters as emergency
$8.03 billion for FY2005.
waivers of environmental requirements are
before Congress.
FY2006 defense authorization (H.R.
1815 and S. 1042) and appropriations (H.R.
A number of environmental measures
2528 and H.R. 2863) have been the subject of
have been the subject of congressional activ-
congressional action; however, bills acted on
ity, some of them as part of comprehensive
thus far do not contain environmental exemp-
bills and laws on broader subjects such as
tions DOD requested.
energy and transportation. On August 8, 2005,
President Bush signed P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6),
Early in 2005, the Senate Environment
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, an omnibus
and Public Works Committee held hearings
energy package that contains numerous envi-
and scheduled markup of S.131, the Clear
ronmentally related provisions. Perhaps the
Skies Act. However, the bill failed on a tie
most controversial include a renewable fuel
vote March 9, 2005, owing to the contentious
standard and streamlined environmental per-
nature of the debate over whether clean air
mitting.
regulation would be made more effective or
weakened by the legislation, and whether it
On August 10, 2005, the President signed
should include the greenhouse gas carbon
the transportation reauthorization bill, P.L.
dioxide.
109-59. This law, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity
As bills receive committee or floor ac-
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
tion, they will be listed in Table I at the end of
contains a variety of environmental provi-
this report, providing a brief description of
sions.
each bill and its current status. The sections on
specific issues contain references to more
Appropriations for the Environmental
detailed CRS reports.
Protection Agency (EPA) affect many of the
programs and issues discussed in this issue
[It should be noted that this issue brief
brief; therefore, the EPA’s annual funding is
treats mainly pollution-related matters; for
an issue of perennial interest. On August 2,
natural resource management issues, see CRS
2005, the President signed the FY2006 appro-
Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected
priations bill for Interior, Environment, and
Issues for the 109th Congress.]
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10146
10-25-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On October 7, 2005, the Senate passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act
for FY2006 (H.R. 2863, S.Rept. 109-141), which would provide $1.42 billion for the cleanup
of environmental contamination on active military installations and former military sites
decommissioned before the first round of base closings in 1988. Action on other defense
authorization and appropriations measures for FY2006 occurred earlier in the session,
including proposed funding for environmental activities. Funding is provided for the
Department of Defense and numerous other federal agencies under a continuing resolution
(P.L. 109-77) through November 18, 2005.
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6), the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. An omnibus energy package, the bill contains numerous environmentally related
provisions. Among these, key provisions include a requirement that motor fuel contain
renewable fuel, streamlined environmental permitting, and stricter regulation of underground
storage tanks. On August 10, 2005 the President signed the transportation reauthorization
bill, P.L. 109-59. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) contains a variety of environmental provisions,
discussed in this report.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The first session of the 109th Congress saw enactment of several laws that include key
environmental provisions, and Congress currently has before it a variety of remaining
environmental measures. Many of the issues dealt with by this Congress reflect continuing
consideration of issues that were before the 108th and prior Congresses. These include issues
that were considered but not enacted, as well as annually occurring legislation on such
matters as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appropriations, and defense and
environment.
Environmental issues considered by Congress tend to fall into several major categories:
(1) funding issues — whether funding levels are adequate and/or focused on appropriate
priorities; in light of the current federal budget deficit, reductions in the budget request for
EPA and other programs present difficult choices, and questions about the adequacy of
funding levels will continue to be debated in such areas as water quality infrastructure and
Superfund cleanup; (2) expanding, renewing, or refocusing existing environmental policies
or programs — consideration of proposals that would alter air quality requirements in the
current Congress, for example; (3) environmental issues that are important elements of other
major areas of concern; for example, the issue of streamlining environmental reviews in
energy and transportation reauthorization legislation, and other environmental provisions in
energy measures, or environmental issues in defense authorization or appropriations; and (4)
terrorism and infrastructure protection in areas such as water infrastructure and chemical
facilities.
The hurricanes that damaged large areas of the U.S. Gulf Coast in late August and
September have been a major focus of congressional attention, including a number of
environmental concerns. Wide-ranging oversight and legislative efforts are examining short-
term responses to the disasters, as well as options for policies and programs that may be
CRS-1

---

IB10146
10-25-05
needed for longer-term clean-up and recovery. Among the many issues of interest are
environmental considerations related to the hurricane cleanup effort, involving a large
number of contaminated — and uncontaminated — substances and debris; the possible need
for modification of environmental laws or rules to expedite disaster response and recovery;
and measures needed to speed delivery of assistance to restore public services, including
water infrastructure facilities. (For discussion and analysis of the environmental aspects of
hurricane-related issues and concerns, see CRS Report RS22248 and CRS Report RS22285
on water facilities and infrastructure; CRS Report RL33107 on emergency waivers of
environmental regulations; CRS Report RL33115 on cleanup issues; CRS Report RL33104
on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and hurricane response; and CRS Report
RL33117 on impacts on biological resources).
Major attention in the first session of the 109th Congress was focused on both energy
and transportation legislation, which passed in late August. Environmental provisions were
key aspects of these laws, as discussed below. Early action occurred on S. 131, Clear Skies
legislation, originally scheduled for markup in February but rescheduled several times for
dates in March, due to the contentious nature of the debate over whether clean air regulation
would be improved or weakened by the bill. Markup occurred on March 9, but the bill failed
on a tie vote in committee, which prevented it from being reported to the floor.
The discussion of major environmental protection issues below focuses on selected key
environmental concerns and related activity in the 109th Congress. It is not intended to
provide comprehensive coverage of all environmental issues; in particular, it does not
address issues involving public lands and natural resources (for information on the latter, see
CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress). For an
overview of major environmental pollution control laws, see CRS Report RL30798,
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations
(By Robert Esworthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7236)
Historically, EPA’s funding has been determined as part of a sub-allocation for Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, and its corresponding
appropriations subcommittee. However, at the beginning of the 109th Congress, the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees reorganized their subcommittees, including placing
EPA’s appropriation under the Interior subcommittee after eliminating the VA-HUD and
Independent Agencies subcommittee.
On August 2, 2005, the President signed the FY2006 appropriations bill for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies, P.L. 109-54 (H.R. 2361, H. Rept.109-188).1 Title II of
P.L. 109-54 provides $7.73 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), subject
to an across-the-board rescission of 0.476%.2 The total FY2006 EPA appropriation includes
1 For information regarding each of the agencies funded in this bill, see CRS Report RL32893,
Interior and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations, by Carol Hardy-Vincent, co-coordinator.
2 Section 439 of Title IV indicates that the rescission is to be applied proportionately among each
(continued...)
CRS-2

---

IB10146
10-25-05
an additional $80 million in unobligated funds “rescinded” from past appropriations. The
President’s FY2006 budget request included $7.52 billion for EPA; Congress appropriated
$8.03 billion for FY2005. Among individual programs, both the House- and Senate-passed
versions of H.R. 2361 reflect decreases and increases throughout the various EPA
appropriations accounts when compared to the President’s FY2006 request and the FY2005
funding levels. (For more information, see CRS Report RL32856, Environmental Protection
Agency: Appropriations for FY2006; and CRS Report RS22064, Environmental Protection
Agency: FY2006 Appropriations Highlights).
Considerable debate focused on funding for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) account providing assistance for water infrastructure. A large portion of the funding
provided within the STAG account is for grants to support state revolving funds (SRFs) for
loans to communities for constructing and upgrading water infrastructure to meet federal
requirements. The adequacy of funding within the STAG account for the clean water SRF
has been of particular concern. P.L. 109-54 provides $900 million for the clean water SRF
prior to the 0.476% across-the-board rescission. As passed by the House, H.R. 2361 would
have provided $850 million (including $100 million in rescinded funds from prior years).
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2361 would have provided $1.10 billion. The
Administration’s request would have reduced funding for the clean water SRF from $1.09
billion in FY2005 to $730 million in FY2006. Prior to the rescission, P.L. 109-54 provides
$850 million for the drinking water SRF, the same as the House and Senate proposed and the
Administration requested, and is similar to the FY2005 appropriation.
Other prominent issues of debate included the adequacy of funding for cleanup of
hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program, the cleanup and redevelopment of
certain commercial and industrial sites referred to as Brownfields, EPA’s homeland security
activities, and “congressional priorities” (or earmarks for specific projects or programs). In
addition to the adequacy of funding, another key issue regarding the Superfund program has
been whether to continue using general Treasury revenues to fund the account, or to reinstate
a tax on industry that expired and had originally paid for most of the program. P.L. 109-54
continues the use of the general Treasury revenues to support Superfund cleanup.
Energy and Environment: The Energy Bill
(By Brent Yacobucci, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-9662)
After lengthy debate over U.S. energy policy, the 109th Congress enacted omnibus
energy legislation. The debate over national energy policy has been ongoing since the 107th
Congress. Both the 107th and 108th Congresses were unable to complete action on an
omnibus energy bill, due to the broad scope of the bills and several contentious issues that
eluded agreement. Many of these contentious issues were addressed in various versions of
energy legislation in the 109th Congress, although some of them were dropped from the final
version of the bill. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6) was signed by
President Bush August 8, 2005. The final version of the bill contains many provisions
involving environmental protection and regulation. Topics in the measure include the
2 (...continued)
account, program, project, and activity specified in the law, accompanying reports, and the
President’s budget request.
CRS-3

---

IB10146
10-25-05
treatment of renewable fuels, stricter regulation of underground fuel storage tanks, and
environmental exemptions for oil and gas exploration and production.
A key component of P.L. 109-58 is a requirement that gasoline contain 7.5 billion
gallons of ethanol and other renewable fuels by 2012. The measure also eliminates Clean
Air Act requirements for the use of oxygenates in reformulated gasoline. The oxygenate
standard led to the increased use of MTBE in gasoline (a fuel additive in gasoline found to
contaminate drinking water supplies, primarily due to leaking underground fuel storage
tanks). The House version of H.R. 6 would have banned the use of MTBE, except in states
that specifically allowed its use. It would also have provided a “safe harbor” from defective
liability lawsuits for MTBE and renewable fuels. The Senate bill would also have banned
MTBE and would have provided a safe harbor for renewable fuels, but not for MTBE. The
final version of the bill does not ban MTBE, nor does it provide a safe harbor for MTBE or
renewable fuels. The safe harbor for MTBE was seen as a key impediment to the passage
of an energy bill in the 108th Congress. (For more information on MTBE, see the sections
of this issue brief on “Clean Air Issues” and “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.”)
P.L. 109-58 provides Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act exemptions for oil
and gas exploration and production (related to stormwater runoff and hydraulic fracturing).
These provisions are seen by some as necessary to promote increased domestic energy
supplies, while critics argue that they may allow energy producers to sidestep environmental
laws.
P.L. 109-58 also contains provisions on technology to address climate change. Title
XVI establishes programs to promote the adoption of technologies — and their transfer to
developing countries — to reduce greenhouse gas intensity (the rate of emissions compared
to economic output). These provisions are similar to those adopted on the Senate floor in
S.Amdt. 817. The Senate also debated two other climate change amendments that were not
included in the final version of the bill. S.Amdt. 866 expressed the sense of the Senate that
Congress should establish mandatory, market-based limits on greenhouse gas emissions; this
amendment was passed by the Senate in a voice vote, but dropped in conference. S.Amdt.
826 would have required mandatory emission reductions; this amendment was rejected 38-
60. The House version of H.R. 6 did not address climate change or greenhouse gas
emissions. (For further discussion, see CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental Issues in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6).)
Recent hurricanes along the gulf coast led to fuel supply disruptions and high gasoline
and diesel prices in many areas of the country. As a result, there is increased interest in
expanding U.S. refining capacity. Although total refining capacity has increased in recent
years, the number of refineries has steadily declined, and no new U.S. refineries have been
built in decades. Many factors have discouraged investment in new refineries, and
environmental regulations have been cited as one of those factors. H.R. 3893, which passed
the House October 7, 2005, would limit the number of fuel blends across the country and
would streamline federal permitting of refineries, among other provisions. A controversial
amendment to the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review provisions was removed before
passage.
CRS-4

---

IB10146
10-25-05
Clean Air Issues
(By Jim McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225)
Congress acted on several Clean Air Act issues in legislation that it passed and sent to
the President before the August recess. The most significant of these issues dealt with
ethanol and reformulated gasoline (RFG), and were included in the Energy Policy Act of
2005, P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6), which the President signed August 8, 2005. The act eliminates
a Clean Air Act requirement that RFG, used in the nation’s most polluted areas, contain at
least 2% oxygen. This requirement had contributed to the use of a gasoline additive called
MTBE. MTBE releases from leaking underground fuel tanks has contaminated ground water
in a number of states. In place of the oxygen requirement, the Energy Policy Act will require
that the total gasoline supply contain increasing amounts of a renewable fuel, such as ethanol.
Ethanol contains oxygen, so it improves combustion just as does MTBE; but, unlike MTBE,
it is generally made from corn rather than petrochemical feedstocks. Thus, its use was
supported by a number of agricultural interest groups, as well as by environmental interests
eager to remove a potential ground water contaminant from the nation’s gasoline supply.
Under the provisions of the new energy law, use of ethanol will more than double by 2012.
Congress also amended the Clean Air Act in H.R. 3 (P.L. 109-59), the transportation
bill that it cleared for the President’s signature July 29, 2005. The President signed the bill
into law (P.L. 109-59) on August 10, 2005. Among its many provisions, P.L. 109-59
addresses the requirement that state and local transportation planners demonstrate conformity
between their transportation plans and the timely achievement of air quality standards.
Under this law, the frequency of conformity determinations and the time horizon over which
conformity must be demonstrated will both be reduced, making the requirement less difficult
to meet. Failure to demonstrate conformity can lead to a temporary suspension of federal
highway funds.
Since the August recess, in response to higher gasoline prices and the impacts of
hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Gulf Coast refining capacity, the House has passed legislation
intended to expedite the construction of new refineries. The bill, H.R. 3893, would empower
the Department of Energy to establish expedited schedules for the issuance of refinery
permits, including those under the Clean Air Act, and would modify Clean Air Act
provisions regarding fuel formulations and nonattainment areas. The Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee is expected to consider refinery legislation, as well, although
it is unclear whether it will contain similar provisions.
Other Clean Air Act amendments appear to have stalled. Major amendments that would
have established a cap-and-trade program for emissions from coal-fired electric power plants
were among the first items on the agenda of the 109th Congress: S. 131 (the Clear Skies Act)
was scheduled for markup by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee March
9, 2005. But the committee failed to approve the bill, on a 9-9 tie vote, in large part because
of complaints that the bill would weaken existing Clean Air Act requirements. A deadline
for mercury regulations helped drive the Clear Skies debate: EPA faced a judicial deadline
of March 15, 2005, to promulgate standards for power plant mercury emissions. The agency
met this deadline, but the specifics of its chosen regulation have been widely criticized and
are now being challenged in court by at least 15 states. The regulations could also have been
overturned if Congress disapproved them under the Congressional Review Act. Resolutions
to do so (S.J.Res. 20/H.J.Res. 56) were introduced June 29, 2005. The Senate resolution was
CRS-5

---

IB10146
10-25-05
discharged from the Committee on Environment and Public Works July 18, 2005, but was
rejected by the Senate, 51-47, on September 13. In addition to its mercury rule, EPA also
finalized, on March10, 2005, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which will cap emissions
of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants in 28 eastern states and the District
of Columbia.
Rather than promulgate the mercury and CAIR rules, the Administration would have
preferred that Congress pass the Clear Skies Act. Under Clear Skies (as under the
promulgated mercury and CAIR regulations), there would be national or regional caps on
emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, with utilities allowed to trade or
bank emission allowances. But Clear Skies would also have removed or modified many
existing Clean Air Act requirements. Whether to modify such requirements as New Source
Review, deadlines for nonattainment areas, and provisions dealing with interstate air
pollution were among the key issues in the Clear Skies debate. Other issues that Congress
and EPA have faced include whether to cap power plant emissions of carbon dioxide (CO )
2
in addition to the other three pollutants. For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10137, Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th Congress.
Clean Water Act
(By Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy, 7-7227)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal law that regulates pollution in the nation’s
lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. It also 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 IB10142,
Clean Water Act Issues in the 109th Congress; for background, see CRS Report RL30030,
Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law.)
The hurricanes that damaged large areas of the U.S. Gulf Coast in August and
September are a focus of congressional attention. Wide-ranging oversight and legislative
efforts are examining short-term responses to the disasters, as well as options for policies and
programs that may be needed for longer-term recovery. One area of interest is restoring
public services that were disabled by the storms, including water infrastructure facilities that
experienced flooding and wind damage. States and EPA are assessing needs to repair or
rebuild these facilities. On September 27, the Senate passed a bill intended to streamline
delivery of funds through existing EPA programs to repair storm-damaged sewage treatment
and drinking water plants (S. 1709). (For information, see CRS Report RS22285,
Hurricane-Damaged Drinking Water and Wastewater Facilities: Impacts, Needs, and
Response.)
Legislation to authorize funding for clean water infrastructure projects has received
attention in the 109th 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 high as $390 billion over the next two decades.
CRS-6

---

IB10146
10-25-05
On July 20, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved S. 1400,
legislation to authorize $20 billion over five years for the act’s State Revolving Fund (SRF)
program, which assists municipal wastewater treatment projects. Also, the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved two bills to reauthorize existing
programs in the CWA. H.R. 624 extends Section 221 of the law, providing federal grants
for sewer overflow projects, and H.R. 1359 extends Section 220, authorizing a pilot program
to develop alternative water supply projects.
Water infrastructure funding also has been an issue in the context of the federal budget
and appropriations. The President’s FY2006 budget requested $730 million for clean water
SRF grants, which is 33% less than was appropriated in FY2005 and 45.6% below the
FY2004 funding level. Advocates of the SRF program (especially state and local government
officials) contend that the cuts will impair their ability to carry out needed municipal
wastewater treatment plant improvement projects. Administration officials said that cuts for
the SRF in FY2006 were necessary because Congress boosted funds above their requested
level in FY2005. In final action on FY2006 appropriations legislation for EPA (P.L. 109-
54), Congress agreed to provide $900 million for grants to capitalize clean water SRFs, $170
million more than the Administration requested, but a 17.5% reduction from the FY2005
appropriated level for this popular program. In addition to funds for SRF grants, the FY2006
appropriation also includes $285 million for congressionally earmarked water infrastructure
project grants. (For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief IB89102, Water Quality:
Implementing the Clean Water Act.)
Safe Drinking Water
(By Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937)
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal statute regulating the
quality of water provided by public water systems. EPA has put in place regulations
covering 91 contaminants, and more rules are pending. Public water systems are required to
test and, if needed, treat their water to comply with the standards and treatment requirements
contained in these regulations. Congress last reauthorized this act in 1996, and although
funding authority for most SDWA programs expired in FY2003, broad reauthorization
efforts have not been pursued as EPA, states, and public water systems continue
implementing the 1996 amendments and related regulations.
Several SDWA issues have received congressional attention in recent years. These
include the ability of water systems, especially small systems, to finance projects needed to
comply with federal drinking water standards (such as the revised arsenic and radium
standards); and contamination problems caused by specific contaminants, such as the fuel
additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and perchlorate (the key ingredient in solid
rocket fuel). (See MTBE discussion in the section below on “Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks.”) Another issue has been whether to exempt from SDWA regulation the underground
injection of fluids for purposes of hydraulic fracturing related to oil and gas production
activities. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6), Section 322, exempts all
fracturing fluids, except diesel fuel, from regulation. S. 1080 would direct EPA to regulate
this practice as needed, and would prohibit the use of diesel fuel and other currently used
pollutants in hydraulic fracturing operations. (For further discussion, see CRS Report
RL32873, Key Environmental Issues in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6).)
CRS-7

---

IB10146
10-25-05
As in recent Congresses, legislation has been offered to address perchlorate
contamination of water supplies. H.R. 213 would require EPA to set a drinking water
standard for perchlorate by August 2007. EPA has not determined whether to develop a
standard for perchlorate, and uncertainties regarding perchlorate’s health effects and
occurrence, as well as concern about treatment technologies and potential cleanup costs, have
slowed EPA’s efforts to make such a determination. In January 2005, the National Research
Council (NRC) issued a comprehensive review of the health effects of perchlorate ingestion
and made several recommendations to EPA regarding its draft perchlorate risk assessment.
In February, EPA adopted the NRC’s recommended reference dose for perchlorate, which
translates to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 parts per billion. (For more
information, see CRS Report RS21961, Perchlorate Contamination of Drinking Water:
Regulatory Issues and Legislative Actions.)
A perennial issue concerns the ability of water systems to improve infrastructure to
comply with drinking water standards and to ensure the safety of water supplies. The 1996
SDWA amendments created a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program
to help systems finance projects needed to meet standards and address health risks. For
FY2006, in P.L. 109-54, Congress has provided $850 million for the DWSRF program, as
requested. Despite this program, an infrastructure funding gap is expected to grow, as
systems act to meet new standards and repair aging infrastructure. EPA’s latest needs survey
indicates that drinking water systems require a capital investment of $277 billion over the
next 20 years. In July, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ordered
reported S. 1400, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, which would reauthorize and
increase funding authority for the DWSRF.
Hurricane Katrina damaged numerous drinking water systems and greatly increased the
infrastructure needs in the Gulf Coast area. The Senate passed S. 1709 to add flexibility to
the clean water and drinking water SRF programs to facilitate their use to repair water
infrastructure damaged by Hurricane Katrina. For information on hurricane-related issues,
see CRS Report RS22248, Federal Disaster and Emergency Assistance for Water
Infrastructure Facilities and Supplies; and CRS Report RL33115, Cleanup after Hurricane
Katrina: Environmental Considerations. (For more on SDWA issues and legislative action,
see 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 created a leak prevention, detection, and cleanup program under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act to address a nationwide 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. In P.L.
109-54, Congress provided $73 million from the trust fund for FY2006, as requested. For
FY2005, Congress provided $69.4 million. The fund balance currently exceeds $2 billion.
Significant progress has been made in the LUST cleanup program, but nearly 130,000
leaking tank sites still require remediation. A key issue is that cleanup costs have increased
because of the presence of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) at thousands of LUST sites;
MTBE leaks have contaminated numerous drinking water supplies, usually at low levels.
CRS-8

---

IB10146
10-25-05
(MTBE has been used widely to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act requirement that oxygenated
gasoline must be used in areas that fail to meet the federal ozone air quality standard.)
Another issue is that most states have not had adequate resources to fully enforce UST leak
prevention regulations. Some states have urged Congress to increase trust fund
appropriations for LUST cleanup activities, and to allow the fund to be used to enforce the
leak prevention program.
P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6), the Energy Policy Act of 2005, adds new leak prevention
provisions to the UST regulatory program and authorizes funding specifically for the
remediation of petroleum tank leaks that involve MTBE. The act also adds tank inspection
and operator training requirements, and requires EPA or a state, when determining the
portion of cleanup costs to recover, to consider the tank owner’s ability to pay for cleanup
and still maintain business operations. It authorizes the appropriation of $200 million from
the LUST Trust Fund annually for five years for addressing leaks involving MTBE or
renewable fuels, and another $200 million annually for five years for EPA and states to
administer the general leaking petroleum tank cleanup program. The act allows EPA and
states to use LUST funds to enforce UST leak prevention regulations and authorizes trust
fund appropriations for this purpose. It also removes the Clean Air Act oxygenated fuel
requirement, and extends the LUST Trust Fund tax through March 2011. (See also CRS
Report RL32865, Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison of Selected Provisions in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6); CRS Report RL32787, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air
and Drinking Water Issues; and CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks: Program Status and Issues.)
Superfund and Brownfields
(By Mark Reisch, Analyst in Environmental Policy, 7-7255)
The Superfund program (created by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, P.L. 96-510, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675) addresses
cleanup at sites that pose significant threats to human health and the environment; the
brownfields effort targets less seriously contaminated sites. The Administration’s FY2006
budget request for the Superfund program was $1.235 billion, and Congress approved $1.217
billion in P.L. 109-54 (before an across-the-board rescission of 0.476% required by Section
439). Authority for the taxes on industry that brought in about $1.48 billion annually to the
Superfund Trust Fund expired in 1995. The FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations for
Superfund (including rescissions, and after transfers, $1.200 billion and $1.199 billion,
respectively), as well as the FY2006 appropriation, came entirely from the general fund of
the Treasury, whereas in earlier years the general fund contributed 17% to 20%, and the
balance of the appropriation was from the trust fund.
Both the House and Senate reports (H.Rept. 109-80, S.Rept. 109-80) accompanying the
appropriations bill (H.R. 2361) directed EPA to clarify the applicability of reporting
requirements in CERCLA and in the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (Title III of P.L. 99-499) to emissions from poultry, dairy, or livestock operations. There
are several recent and pending court cases that center on this question.
The Superfund law’s stringent liability scheme often subjects a wide variety of persons
— including the present owner of a facility — to strict, joint, and several liability for
cleanup and other costs. Past Congresses have limited the liability of financial institutions
CRS-9

---

IB10146
10-25-05
and recyclers, as well as protecting those who sent only very small quantities of hazardous
waste to a Superfund site, those who only sent municipal solid waste, and several categories
of “innocent parties.” For several years service station dealers have been seeking to expand
a limited existing exemption from liability for waste oil, and the issue may be taken up in the
109th Congress; H.R. 2211, as introduced, would provide the additional liability protection.
Appropriations for EPA’s brownfields program were $169.9 million in FY2004, and
$163.2 million in FY2005 (after rescissions both years). The Administration’s FY2006
budget request was $210.1 million, and Congress approved $165.0 million (prior to the
rescission of 0.476%).
Among brownfield bills in the 109th Congress, the House Financial Services Committee
reported H.R. 280 on June 16, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-138). The bill would make HUD
brownfield grants more accessible to smaller communities. Also, H.R. 3 (P.L. 109-59);
H.Rept. 109-203 [conference report]), the transportation bill that the President signed on
August 10, 2005, includes a pilot program to support planning activities (including
brownfield redevelopment planning) related to highway and public transportation projects.
Several other brownfield bills have been introduced. H.R. 336 and H.R. 1237 would
authorize funds for five years for the Economic Development Administration to make grants
of up to 75% of the cost of brownfield development projects. S. 398 and H.R. 877 would
expand and make permanent the brownfields tax incentive, as well as eliminate the recapture
provision; H.R. 2683 would extend the incentive through 2009. H.R. 1680 would allow a
limited tax credit to holders of qualified brownfields cleanup bonds.
Surface Transportation and Environment
(By Linda Luther, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-6852)
On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed P.L. 109-59 (H.R. 3), the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU, also known as SAFETEA). The act authorizes federal surface
transportation programs (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) through FY2009.
During the reauthorization process, certain environmental issues garnered significant
attention from both Members of Congress and interested stakeholders (e.g., state
transportation agencies, transportation construction organizations, and environmental
groups). This attention was due to both the impact that surface transportation projects can
have on the environment (and, possibly, the costs associated with addressing those impacts)
and the impact that compliance with environmental requirements can have on project
delivery.
SAFETEA includes a variety of environmental provisions. Generally, those provisions
do one of the following: authorize funding to eliminate, control, mitigate, or minimize
environmental impacts associated with surface transportation programs or projects; or specify
procedures required to be undertaken to expedite compliance with certain environmental
requirements. With regard to the latter, environmental provisions in SAFETEA that have
garnered the most attention and debate are those that change the procedures DOT will be
required to follow to comply with the Clean Air Act’s (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) conformity
CRS-10

---

IB10146
10-25-05
requirements; to “streamline” compliance with environmental review requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.); and to streamline
compliance with “Section 4(f)” requirements regarding the use of publicly owned parks and
recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and publicly or privately owned historic
sites. (For additional information on these issues, see CRS Report RL33057, Surface
Transportation Reauthorization: Environmental Issues and Legislative Provisions in
SAFETEA-LU (H.R. 3, P.L. 109-59); and CRS Report RL32106, Transportation Conformity
Under the Clean Air Act: In Need of Reform?.)
Chemicals: Security and Regulatory Issues
(By Linda Schierow, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7279)
The 109th Congress is considering whether there is a need for federal oversight of
security arrangements against terrorism for privately owned facilities storing or handling
large quantities of potentially dangerous chemicals. At issue are the role of the federal
government in protecting such facilities from terrorist acts, and how facilities should address
concerns about terrorism. In the 109th Congress, two House bills would require designated
facilities to prepare vulnerability assessments and plans for increasing facility safety and/or
security and responding in the event of an emergency. H.R. 1562 would require submission
of assessments and plans to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), while H.R. 2237
would require submission to EPA. H.R. 2237 also would require consideration and use of
“inherently safer” technologies, if practicable. No bill has been introduced into the Senate
to date, but the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has held four
hearings, and Senator Collins announced at the most recent hearing that she and Senator
Lieberman plan to introduce a bill soon. (For more information, see CRS Report RL31530,
Chemical Plant Security; and CRS Report RL33043, Legislative Approaches to Chemical
Facility Security.)

The 109th Congress also may consider amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), so as to allow
implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The
Stockholm Convention bans or severely restricts production, trade, and use of 12 POPs,
including DDT, PCBs, and other chemicals that generally are no longer in U.S. commerce.
Although the President has signed the treaty, implementing legislation is necessary prior to
U.S. ratification. Discussion in the 108th Congress centered on EPA authority for rulemaking
concerning POPs (especially POPs which might be listed in future amendments to the treaty),
and the extent to which this authority should differ from EPA’s existing authority for
regulating toxic chemicals and pesticides. The Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works reported a bill, S. 1486, that proposed amendments to TSCA. No similar bill
has yet been introduced in the 109th Congress, but H.R. 3849 would amend FIFRA to
implement pesticide-related provisions of the treaty. (For more information, see CRS Report
RL32150, International Agreements on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS): Background
and Issues for Congress.)
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
(By David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390)
The Department of Defense (DOD) administers five programs to address the cleanup
of hazardous waste and other environmental needs on over 30 million acres of land located
CRS-11

---

IB10146
10-25-05
on active military installations and former military properties. In addition to these activities,
the Department of Energy (DOE), as part of its overall responsibility for U.S. nuclear
weapons programs, is responsible for cleaning up contamination at former nuclear weapons
sites. Legislation to authorize and appropriate funding for national defense programs for
FY2006, including DOD and DOE’s defense-related environmental activities, is under
consideration but has not been enacted thus far. Funding is provided under a continuing
resolution (P.L. 109-77) through November 18, 2005. Major focuses of attention have been
cleanup of bases being closed, and the question of exemptions from some environmental
laws that have been proposed by the Defense Department.
Both H.R. 1815 and S. 1042 would authorize the Administration’s request of $378
million for cleanup of bases closed under past rounds since 1988. As passed by the House
and Senate, H.R. 2528 would appropriate the same amount as authorized for this activity.
DOD has recommended closing additional bases in 2005. A prominent issue has been
whether potential cost or technical limitations to cleaning up these properties for civilian
reuse could constrain economic redevelopment. (See CRS Report RS22065, Military Base
Closures: Role and Costs of Environmental Cleanup.)
Another issue has been whether further environmental exemptions than are provided
in current law are necessary to preserve military training capabilities. The 107th and 108th
Congresses enacted the exemptions that DOD requested from certain wildlife protection
requirements. However, Congress has not enacted exemptions from specific air quality and
hazardous waste cleanup requirements that have been controversial, based on concerns about
human health risks. Thus far, none of the FY2006 defense authorization or appropriations
bills include these exemptions. (See CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental
Law for the Department of Defense: An Overview of Congressional Action.)
For FY2006, the primary issue regarding DOE’s cleanup of former nuclear weapons
sites has been the adequacy of funding to address human health and environmental risks in
a timely manner. There are differences in the House and Senate between authorized and
appropriated amounts, which are significantly higher than the Administration’s request of
$6.02 billion, but are less than the FY2005 appropriation of $6.81 billion. As passed by the
House, H.R. 2419 would appropriate $6.47 billion, more than the authorization of $6.31
billion that the House passed in H.R. 1815. As passed by the Senate, H.R. 2419 would
appropriate $6.37 billion, more than the authorization of $6.19 billion approved by the
Senate Armed Services Committee in reporting S. 1042. (See the “Environmental
Management” section in CRS Report RL32852, Energy and Water Development: FY2006
Appropriations.)
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
(By Brent Yacobucci, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-9662)
The development of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles has emerged
as a key issue in Congress. Advanced technology vehicles, such as 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
CRS-12

---

IB10146
10-25-05
Administration in legislatively supporting vehicle and fuel development, and promoting their
entry into the marketplace.
As noted above, the 109th Congress enacted comprehensive energy legislation, similar
to unfinished legislation in the 108th Congress. Signed by President Bush August 8, 2005,
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58; H.R. 6) authorizes increased funding for
hydrogen and fuel cell research, establishes tax credits for the purchase of alternative fuel and
advanced technology vehicles, and promotes biofuels. A key component of H.R. 6, a
renewable fuels standard (RFS), requires the use of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel in
gasoline by 2012. Earlier versions of the bill would have granted blenders of renewable fuels
and MTBE (another gasoline additive) a “safe harbor” from defective product liability, but
these provisions were not included in the final bill. Similar liability protection for MTBE
was included in the energy bill in the 108th Congress, and was cited as one of the
impediments to the bill’s passage.
The 109th Congress enacted legislation to reauthorize federal highway and transit
programs. On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59, H.R. 3), discussed
above. Among other provisions, the highway bill reauthorizes funding for various projects,
including advanced technology and alternative fuel transit buses. Further, the bill allows
states to exempt certain alternative fuel and high-efficiency vehicles from high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) restrictions.
A key component of the Bush Administration’s environmental goals is focused on
research on hydrogen fuel and fuel cells — through the Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR
initiatives. For FY2005, Congress appropriated a total of $264 million for these initiatives;
the Administration has requested a total of $283 million for FY2006. Funding for these is
considered in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill and the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill. (For further discussion, see CRS Issue Brief IB10128,
Alternative Fuels and Vehicles: Issues in Congress.)
CRS-13

---

IB10146
10-25-05
Table 1. Action on Environmental Legislation in the 109th Congress
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 3 (P.L. 109-59)
Signed by the President
Among other provisions, amends the
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible August 10, 2005
Clean Air Act conformity provisions,
and Efficient Transportation
and specifies procedures to perform
Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for
environmental reviews under NEPA
Users (SAFETEA-LU)
for transportation projects. 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
H.R. 6 (P.L. 109-58)
Conf. Report (H.Rept. 109-190)
An omnibus energy bill. Various
Energy Policy Act of 2005
Approved in House July 28, 2005
environmental provisions include
Approved in Senate July 29, 2005 expediting permitting, amendments to
Signed by the President August 8, the Clean Air Act fuels requirements,
2005
funding for MTBE cleanup, and a
renewable fuels standard (RFS).
H.R. 280
Reported by House Financial Makes HUD brownfields grants more
Brownfields Redevelopment Services Committee
accessible to smaller communities.
Enhancement Act
June 16, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-138)
Establishes a pilot program that
includes brownfield planning.
H.R. 624
Approved by House Transportation Amends the Clean Water Act to re-
To amend the Federal Water and Infrastructure Committee May authorize appropriations for sewer
Pollution Control Act to authorize 18, 2005
overflow grants (Section 221)
appropriations for sewer overflow (H.Rept. 109-166)
control grants.
H.R. 1359
Approved by House Transportation Amends the Clean Water Act to re-
To amend the Federal Water and Infrastructure Committee May authorize pilot program for
Pollution Control Act to extend 18, 2005
alternative water source projects.
the pilot program for alternative (H.Rept. 109-167)
water source projects.
H.R. 1815
Passed the House May 25, 2005
Would authorize funding for national
National Defense Authorization (H.Rept. 109-89).
defense programs, including
Act for FY2006
environmental cleanup at active,
closed, and other former military
installations, and former defense
nuclear weapons sites. Does not
include exemptions from the Clean
Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act,
and CERCLA that DOD had
requested.
H.R. 2361 (P.L. 109-54)
Signed August 2, 2005 (H.Rept. Funds EPA at $7.73 billion for
Interior, Environment and Related 109-188)
FY2006 (subject to a 0.476% across-
Agencies Appropriations Bill
the-board rescission)
FY2006
CRS-14

---

IB10146
10-25-05
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 2419
Passed the House May 24, 2005
Would appropriate funding for
Energy and Water Development (H.Rept. 109-86).
environmental cleanup at former
Appropriations Act for FY2006
defense nuclear weapons sites.
Passed the Senate July 1, 2005
(S.Rept. 109-84)
H.R. 2528
Passed the House May 26, 2005 The House bill would appropriate
Military Quality of Life and (H.Rept. 109-95).
funding for national defense
Veterans Affairs and Related
programs, including environmental
Agencies Appropriations Act for R e p o r t e d b y t h e S e n a t e cleanup at active, closed, and other
FY2006 (House)
Appropriations Committee on July former military installations. The
21, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-105).
Senate bill would appropriate funding
Military Construction and
for national defense programs as well,
Veterans Affairs and Related
but would provide cleanup funding
Agencies Appropriations Act for
only for closed bases. Cleanup
FY2006 (Senate)
funding for active and other former
installations would be provided in the
Senate in the DOD appropriations
bill, H.R. 2863 discussed below, due
to jurisdictional differences with the
House.
H.R. 2863
Passed the Senate October 7, 2005 Would appropriate funding for
D e p a r t m e n t o f D e f e n s e (S.Rept. 109-141).
national defense programs, including
Appropriations Act for FY2006
cleanup of active and former military
installations. Funding for cleanup of
these installations is provided in H.R.
2528 in the House as a result of
differences in committee jurisdiction,
noted above.
H.R. 3893
Passed the House October 7, 2005 A bill to expedite the construction of
Gasoline for America’s Security (H.Rept. 109-244)
new U.S. refining capacity. Among
Act of 2005
other provisions the bill would
streamline federal permitting and
limit the number of fuel blends
nationwide.
S. 131
Markup failed on a tie vote March A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to
Clear Skies Act
9, 2005.
reduce air pollution from electric
utilities through expansion of cap and
trade programs, and to alter or delete
current provisions of the Clean Air
Act applicable to electric utilities.
S. 606
Reported by Senate Committee on Requires the use of 6 billion gallons
Reliable Fuels Act
Environment and Public Works on of renewable fuel by 2012. Bans the
May 26, 2005
use of MTBE nationwide four years
(S.Rept. 109-74), then superseded after enactment. Eliminates
by provisions incorporated into reformulated gasoline oxygen
H.R. 6.
requirements.
CRS-15

---

IB10146
10-25-05
Bill Status
Purpose
S. 732 (H.R. 3, P.L. 109-59)
Approved by Senate Environment Environmental provisions similar to
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Public Works Committee on H.R. 3. In addition to historic sites,
and Efficient Transportation March 17, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-53). amendments to the DOT Act of 1966
Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA) Passed as H.R. 3 (P.L. 109-59) would apply to publicly owned parks,
May 17, 2005, which, after recreation areas, wildlife and
conference, was signed into law waterfowl refuges.
August 10, 2005.
S. 1042
Reported by the Senate Armed Would authorize funding for national
National Defense Authorization Services Committee on May 17, defense programs, including
Act for FY2006
2005 (S.Rept. 109-69).
environmental cleanup at active,
closed, and other former military
installations, and former defense
nuclear weapons sites. Does not
include exemptions from the Clean
Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act,
and CERCLA that DOD had
requested.
S. 1400
Approved by Senate Environment Authorizes funds for clean water and
Water Infrastructure Financing and Public Works Committee
drinking water state revolving fund
Act
July 20, 2005
programs.
S. 1709 Gulf Coast Emergency
Passed by Senate September 27, Adds flexibility to the clean water
Water Assistance Act
2005
and drinking water state revolving
fund programs to facilitate use of
funds to repair water infrastructure
damaged by Hurricane Katrina or
related conditions.
CRS-16

---