Order Code RL33481
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 109th Congress
Updated August 21, 2006
Susan R. Fletcher and Margaret Isler, Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
David M. Bearden, Claudia Copeland, Robert Esworthy,
Linda Luther, James E. McCarthy, Jonathan L. Ramseur,
Mark Reisch, Linda-Jo Schierow, Mary Tiemann,
and Brent D. Yacobucci
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Environmental Protection Issues
in the 109th Congress
Summary
Environmental protection concerns span a wide variety of issues, including
clean air, water quality, chemical security, and environmental aspects of other major
issue areas, such as energy, transportation, disaster relief and cleanup, and defense.
This report provides an overview of key environmental issues receiving attention in
the 109th Congress.
A number of environmental measures have been the subject of congressional
activity, some of them as part of comprehensive bills and laws on broader subjects
such as energy and transportation. On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed P.L.
109-58 (H.R. 6), the Energy Policy Act of 2005, an omnibus energy package that
contains numerous environmentally related provisions. Perhaps the most important
include a renewable fuel standard and streamlined environmental permitting. On
August 10, 2005, the President signed the transportation reauthorization bill, P.L.
109-59. This law, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), contains various environmental
provisions.
Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) affect many of
the programs and issues discussed in this report. Issues related to EPA’s funding
have been of perennial interest in Congress. In the second session of the 109th
Congress, the House passed the FY2007 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill (H.R. 5386) on May 18, 2006, including $7.58 billion for EPA.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $7.53 billion for EPA in
reporting its version of this bill on June 29, 2006. Both amounts are more than the
President’s request of $7.32 billion, but are less than the FY2006 appropriation of
$7.72 billion, including enacted supplemental funding.
The second session also has under consideration FY2007 defense authorization
(H.R. 5122 and S. 2766) and appropriations legislation (H.R. 5385, H.R. 5427, and
H.R. 5631), which include funding for cleanup and other environmental activities on
military lands and former nuclear weapons sites. Although the Department of
Defense (DOD) requested exemptions from air quality and environmental cleanup
requirements, these bills do not include them.
As bills receive floor action, they will be listed at the end of this report in Table
1, which briefly describes each bill and its current status. Sections of this report on
specific issues contain references to more detailed CRS reports. This report will be
updated regularly to reflect congressional action. (Note: This report treats mainly
pollution-related matters; for natural resource management issues, see CRS Report
RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress, coordinated by
Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent.) This report replaces CRS Issue Brief
IB10146, Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress, coordinated by
Susan R. Fletcher and Margaret Isler.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Energy and Environment: The Energy Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Clean Air Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Clean Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Safe Drinking Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Superfund and Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Brownfield Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Surface Transportation and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chemicals: Security and Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Table 1. Environmental Protection Legislation Passed in the 109th Congress . . 18

---

Environmental Protection Issues
in the 109th Congress
Introduction
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 matters such as Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) appropriations and environmental provisions in defense-related
legislation.
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) security concerns, such as 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 of 2005 have been a major focus of congressional attention, including
a number of environmental concerns. Wide-ranging oversight and legislative efforts
have examined short-term responses to the disasters, as well as options for policies
and programs that may be needed for longer-term cleanup and recovery. Among the
many issues of interest are environmental considerations related to the hurricane
cleanup effort, involving a large amount of contaminated 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, Federal Disaster and Emergency Assistance for Water
Infrastructure Facilities and Supplies, by Claudia Copeland, Mary Tiemann, and
Nicole T. Carter; CRS Report RS22285, Hurricane-Damaged Drinking Water and
Wastewater Facilities: Impacts, Needs, and Response, by Claudia Copeland; CRS

---

CRS-2
Report RL33107, Emergency Waiver of EPA Regulations: Authorities and
Legislative Proposals in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, by James E. McCarthy
and Claudia Copeland; CRS Report RL33115, Cleanup After Hurricane Katrina:
Environmental Considerations, by Robert Esworthy, Linda-Jo Schierow, Claudia
Copeland, Linda Luther, and Jonathan L. Ramseur; CRS Report RL33104, NEPA
and Hurricane Response, Recovery, and Rebuilding Efforts, by Linda Luther; and
CRS Report RL33117, The Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Biological Resources,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.)
Major attention in the first session of the 109th Congress was focused on
consideration and passage of both energy and transportation laws, which were
enacted in 2005. Environmental provisions were key aspects of these laws, as
discussed below. Early action also occurred on S. 131, Clear Skies legislation, which
was scheduled for markup March 9, 2005; a tie vote in committee prevented the bill
from being reported to the floor.
Thus far in the second session, congressional action on environmental
legislation has focused primarily on EPA appropriations and defense bills that
include authorization and appropriation of funding for environmental activities (see
discussion below).
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, parks, or other natural
resources. (For information on the latter, see CRS Report RL32699, Natural
Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress, coordinated by Nicole Carter and
Carol Hardy Vincent. For an overview of major environmental pollution control
laws, see CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes
Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by Susan R.
Fletcher.)
Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations
(By David Bearden, Analyst in Environmental Policy, 7-2390, and Robert Esworthy,
Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7236)
Early in the first session, the 109th Congress eliminated the Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies
appropriations subcommittee and moved funding jurisdiction for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to the Interior subcommittee. As enacted during the first
session in August 2005, Title II of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-54, H.R. 2361) provided $7.73 billion for
EPA. However, Congress reduced this amount to $7.71 billion in the first session,
as a result of a 0.476% across-the-board rescission required in P.L. 109-54 and a 1%
government-wide rescission subsequently required in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-148). Overall, P.L. 109-54 provided more
funding to EPA for FY2006 than the Administration’s request of $7.52 billion, but
less than the FY2005 appropriation of $8.03 billion. (For more information, see CRS
Report RL32856, Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for FY2006, by
Robert Esworthy and David Bearden, and CRS Report RS22064, Environmental

---

CRS-3
Protection Agency: FY2006 Appropriations Highlights, by David Bearden and
Robert Esworthy.)
In the second session, attention turned to appropriations for FY2007 and
completing action on supplemental appropriations for FY2006. As passed by the
House on May 18, 2006, Title II of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill for FY2007 (H.R. 5386, H.Rept. 109-465) would provide $7.58
billion for EPA. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $7.53 billion
for EPA in reporting its version of this bill (S.Rept. 109-275) on June 29, 2006.
Senate floor action on H.R. 5386 had not occurred as of the August recess. Although
the full House and the Senate Appropriations Committee amounts differ, they both
are more than the President’s request of $7.32 billion, but are less than the FY2006
appropriation of $7.72 billion, including enacted supplemental funding.
The President signed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
FY2006 (P.L. 109-234, H.R. 4939) on June 15, 2006, increasing EPA’s FY2006
appropriation by $13 million; of this amount, $6 million was for increased
environmental monitoring, assessment, and analytical support to protect public health
during the ongoing recovery and reconstruction efforts related to the consequences
of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 2005 season, and $7 million was for
assessing underground storage tanks that may have leaked in areas affected by these
hurricanes.
As in recent years, the debate over FY2007 appropriations for EPA has included
a major focus on the adequacy of the President’s request for federal assistance to
states for the clean water and drinking water State Revolving Funds (SRFs), from
which states issue loans to communities for constructing and upgrading wastewater
and drinking water infrastructure to meet federal requirements. Also similar to recent
years, other prominent issues include the adequacy of the President’s request for the
cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program and the cleanup of
commercial and industrial sites, referred to as brownfields. There also has been
broad congressional interest in the adequacy of funding for scientific research, air
quality programs, and EPA’s homeland security activities. The extent to which
funding for individual grant recipients should be congressionally designated (often
referred to as earmarks) is also a continuing issue. (For more information, see CRS
Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007
Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren, and CRS
Report RS22386, Environmental Protection Agency: FY2007 Appropriations
Highlights, by David Bearden and Robert Esworthy.)
Energy and Environment: The Energy Bill
(By Brent D. Yacobucci, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-9662)
After lengthy debate over U.S. energy policy, the 109th Congress enacted
omnibus energy legislation in July 2005. 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 stalemates over several contentious issues. 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

---

CRS-4
Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6) was signed by President Bush on August
8, 2005. The final version of the bill contains many provisions involving
environmental protection and regulation, including the 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 sold in the
United States must contain 7.5 billion gallons annually 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. (MTBE is a fuel additive used to increase
combustion efficiency that was found to contaminate drinking water supplies,
primarily due to leaking underground fuel storage tanks). The voluntary transition
away from MTBE by gasoline suppliers in spring 2006 (along with high petroleum
prices) led to historically high gasoline prices and concerns over the supply of ethanol
for blending into gasoline. (For more information, see CRS Report RL32865,
Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison of Selected Provisions in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6), by Brent D. Yacobucci, Mary Tiemann, James E.
McCarthy, and Aaron M. Flynn, and CRS Report RL31361, “Boutique Fuels” and
Reformulated Gasoline: Harmonization of Fuel Standards, Brent D. Yacobucci.
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, whereas critics complain that they will allow
energy producers to sidestep environmental protection requirements and may result
in groundwater and surface water pollution.
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 (emissions per
unit of 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), coordinated by Brent D. Yacobucci.
The major hurricanes along the gulf coast in 2005 led to fuel supply disruptions
and contributed to significantly higher 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 on October 7, 2005, would limit the number of fuel blends across

---

CRS-5
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. (For more information on new source
review, see CRS Report RS21608, Clean Air and New Source Review: Defining
Routine Maintenance, by Larry Parker.)
Clean Air Issues
(By James E. McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225)
The courts and the executive branch are facing major decisions on clean air
issues in 2006, with Congress playing an oversight role. On March 17, 2006, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down an EPA rule that would have
modified the New Source Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act, exempting
most equipment replacement projects at power plants and other industrial sites from
requirements to install pollution control equipment. In a 3-0 decision, the court held
that EPA’s attempt to change the NSR regulations was “contrary to the plain
language” of the act.
On January 17, 2006, EPA proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for particulate matter. The proposed standards, which were subject
to public comment until April and will be finalized in some form in September 2006,
would cut the allowable concentration of fine particles in the air averaged over 24-
hour periods almost in half, from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35
µg/m3, avoiding several thousand premature deaths annually. The EPA
Administrator proposed to leave the annual standard for fine particles unchanged at
15 µg/m3, despite the recommendation of his independent scientific advisory
committee that it be reduced to 13 or 14. The committee strongly disagrees with the
Administrator’s action, and it took the unprecedented step of urging him to
reconsider the proposal. The proposed changes are expected to increase the number
of counties in nonattainment areas from 208 to at least 283. More stringent standards
might have tripled the number of counties with readings above the standard,
according to the agency.
Congress acted on several Clean Air Act (CAA) issues in legislation that it
passed and sent to the President in late July 2005. The most significant of these
issues, dealing with ethanol and reformulated gasoline (RFG), were addressed in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, H.R. 6 (P.L. 109-58). The act eliminates a requirement
that RFG, used in the nation’s most polluted areas, contain at least 2% oxygen. In
its place, the act requires that the total gasoline supply contain increasing amounts
of renewable fuels, a requirement of great interest to the nation’s agricultural sector.
The renewable fuel is most likely to be ethanol, which is generally made from corn.
Congress also amended the Clean Air Act in H.R. 3 (P.L. 109-59), the
transportation bill that the President signed on August 10, 2005 (further discussed
below). H.R. 3 addresses a requirement that state and local transportation planners
demonstrate “conformity” between their transportation plans and the timely
achievement of air quality standards. Under the act, the frequency of conformity
determinations and the time frame during which conformity must be demonstrated
will both be reduced. Failure to demonstrate conformity can lead to a temporary
suspension of federal highway funds.

---

CRS-6
Other Clean Air Act amendments appear to have stalled. A bill that would have
established a cap-and-trade program for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO ), nitrogen
2
oxides (NOx), and mercury from coal-fired electric power plants was 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 on
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. Another issue in the debate was whether to cap emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO ) in addition to the other three pollutants. With Clear Skies stalled, on
2
March 10, 2005, EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which will cap
emissions of SO and NOx from power plants in 28 eastern states and the District of
2
Columbia and establish a cap-and-trade system through regulation.
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 specific regulations have
been widely criticized and are now being challenged by at least 15 states. The
regulations could have been overturned if Congress disapproved them under the
Congressional Review Act. A resolution to do so (S.J.Res.20) was defeated by a vote
of 51-47 on September 13, 2005. Whether to modify other requirements of the Clean
Air Act (New Source Review, deadlines for non-attainment areas, and provisions
dealing with interstate air pollution) have also been contentious issues. (For
additional information, see CRS Report RL33552, Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th
Congress, by James E. McCarthy.)
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 Report RL33465, Clean Water Act Issues in the 109th
Congress, and CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, both
by Claudia Copeland.)
During the first session of the 109th Congress, some legislative action occurred
on specific CWA programs. In December 2005, Congress passed H.R. 3963
(H.Rept. 109-293), authorizing $40 million per year for six years to extend the Long
Island Sound program under Section 119 of the act. President Bush signed it on
December 22 (P.L. 109-137). Also in that month, the House approved H.R. 1721
(H.Rept. 109-292) to extend the coastal water quality program in Section 406 of the
act and to authorize $30 million over six years for coastal water quality monitoring
activities. In May 2005, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
approved bills to reauthorize two other existing CWA programs. The bills are (1)

---

CRS-7
H.R. 624 (H.Rept. 109-166), to reauthorize Section 221 of the act and provide $1.5
billion over six years for sewer overflow projects (identical to H.R. 784 from the
108th Congress), and (2) H.R. 1359 (H.Rept. 109-167), to extend Section 220 of the
act, authorizing a pilot program for alternative water source projects.
Legislation to authorize funding for clean water infrastructure projects has
received attention in the 109th Congress. At issue is how the federal government will
help states and cities meet 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. In July 2005, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee approved S. 1400 (S.Rept. 109-186), authorizing federal funds for water
quality and drinking water State Revolving Fund programs. In the House, several
clean water infrastructure funding bills have been introduced (H.R. 2684, H.R. 4560),
but no further action has occurred. Prospects for future action on these legislative
proposals are uncertain.
The hurricanes that damaged large areas of the U.S. Gulf Coast in August and
September of 2005 have been a major focus of congressional attention. 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, 2005, 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, by Claudia
Copeland.)
Water infrastructure funding also has been an issue in the context of the federal
budget and appropriations. In final action on FY2006 appropriations legislation for
EPA (P.L. 109-54), Congress agreed to provide $887 million for grants to capitalize
clean water SRFs, $157 million more than the Administration requested, but a 18.7%
reduction from the FY2005 appropriated level for this program. In addition to funds
for SRF grants, the FY2006 appropriation included $281 million for congressionally
earmarked water infrastructure project grants.
In the second session, the FY2007 budget request was $687.6 million for clean
water SRF grants, which is 22% less than was appropriated in FY2006 and 37%
below the FY2005 funding level. On May 18, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5386
(H.Rept. 109-465), which provided the requested level of $687.6 million for Clean
Water SRF grants. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the same funding
level for clean water SRF grants when it reported H.R. 5386 on June 29 (S.Rept. 109-
275). Both bills include funds for congressionally earmarked project grants ($200
million in the House bill, and $210 million in the Senate bill), which the
Administration did not request. 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 say that cuts for the SRF in FY2007 are necessary because Congress boosted
funds above the requested level in FY2005 and 2006. (For additional information, see
CRS Report RL33466, Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act, by
Claudia Copeland.)

---

CRS-8
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.
SDWA issues receiving congressional attention include the ability of water
systems, especially small systems, to finance projects needed to comply with drinking
water standards (such as the new arsenic, radium, and disinfection byproduct
standards), and to address contamination by unregulated contaminants, such as
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.”) An SDWA issue in the first session was whether to exempt from regulation
the injection into underground drinking water sources fluids that are used for
hydraulic fracturing related to oil and gas production. The Energy Policy Act of
2005, P.L. 109-58, Section 322, amended SDWA to exempt all fracturing fluids,
except diesel fuel, from regulation. (See CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental
Issues in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6), coordinated by Brent
D. Yacobucci.) 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.
Perchlorate contamination has also received attention in this Congress. House-
passed H.R. 186 and H.R. 18 would authorize remediation of perchlorate-
contaminated water in specified areas of California. H.R. 5122, the Department of
Defense Authorization Act for FY2007, as passed the House, would require a study
of perchlorate contamination at formerly used defense sites. H.R. 4798/S. 2298
would authorize grants for remediating California water supplies contaminated by
perchlorate, authorize grants for perchlorate cleanup technology development, and
expresses the sense of Congress that EPA should establish a perchlorate drinking
water standard. H.R. 213 would require EPA to set a standard for perchlorate in
2007. EPA has not determined whether regulation is needed, citing uncertainties
regarding perchlorate’s health risk and occurrence, and concern over the cost of
treatment. In early 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. EPA has
adopted the NRC’s recommended reference dose for perchlorate, which would
inform the standard-setting process, and translates to a drinking water equivalent
level of 24.5 parts per billion. (For details, see CRS Report RS21961, Perchlorate
Contamination of Drinking Water: Regulatory Issues and Legislative Actions, by
Mary Tiemann.)
A key issue concerns the ability of water systems to improve infrastructure to
comply with SDWA standards and ensure the safety of water supplies. In 1996,
Congress 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 provided $837.5 million for the DWSRF program.

---

CRS-9
H.R. 5386, as passed by the House and reported in the Senate, would provide $841.5
million for FY2007, as requested. Despite this program, an infrastructure funding
gap is expected to grow as systems act to meet new standards and repair aging
facilities.
EPA’s latest needs survey indicates that water systems require a capital
investment of $277 billion over 20 years. Senate-passed S. 1709 would add
flexibility to the drinking water and clean water SRF programs to facilitate their use
to repair water and wastewater systems damaged by Hurricane Katrina. S. 1400
(S.Rept. 109-186) would revise and increase funding authority for these SRF
programs. (For information on SDWA issues and legislative action, see CRS Report
RL33549, Safe Drinking Water Act: Issues in the 109th Congress, by Mary Tiemann.
For additional information on hurricane-related issues, see CRS Report RS22248,
Federal Disaster and Emergency Assistance for Water Infrastructure Facilities and
Supplies, by Claudia Copeland, Mary Tiemann, and Nicole T. Carter, and CRS
Report RL33115, Cleanup after Hurricane Katrina: Environmental Considerations,
by Robert Esworthy, Linda-Jo Schierow, Claudia Copeland, Linda Luther, and
Jonathan L. Ramseur.)
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. For FY2005, Congress provided $69.4 million from
the trust fund for EPA and states to administer the LUST cleanup program. For
FY2006, Congress provided the requested $73 million in P.L. 109-54 and then
provided another $8 million in P.L. 109-148 for cleaning up releases from tanks
damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. For FY2007, the President has requested
$72.8 million. The fund balance currently exceeds $2.4 billion and it earned some
$77 million in interest during FY2005.
Although much progress has been made in the LUST cleanup program, more
than 119,000 leaking tank sites still require remediation. One 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. (As discussed above in the section on air
quality, 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. 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.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6) extends the gas tax that
supports the LUST Trust Fund through March 2011 (§1362) and removes the Clean
Air Act oxygenated fuel requirement that promoted greater use of MTBE. As

---

CRS-10
amended by P.L. 109-168 in January 2006, the energy act authorizes the
appropriation of $200 million from the fund annually for six years for EPA and states
to address leaks involving MTBE or renewable fuels, and another $200 million
annually for six years for EPA and states to administer the general leaking petroleum
tank cleanup program. To better prevent leaks, P.L 109-58 adds new tank inspection,
operator training, and other requirements to the UST regulatory program.
Although the UST subtitle of the Energy Policy Act authorizes appropriations
from the LUST Trust Fund for states to use to administer and enforce UST leak
prevention requirements, the tax extension language in the act prohibits the use of
appropriations from the trust fund for any new purposes. Consequently, the energy
policy act imposes new leak prevention requirements on the states, but it prohibits
the use of the Trust Fund to support state implementation efforts. (For more
information, see CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks:
Program Status and Issues, by Mary Tiemann; CRS Report RL32865, Renewable
Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison of Selected Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (H.R. 6), by Brent D. Yacobucci, Mary Tiemann, James E. McCarthy, and
Aaron M. Flynn; and CRS Report RL32787, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and
Drinking Water Issues, by James E. McCarthy and Mary Tiemann.)
Superfund and Brownfields
(By Mark Reisch, 7-7255, and Jonathan Ramseur, 7-7919, Analysts in Environmental
Policy)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675) established the Superfund program to clean up
contamination at sites that pose significant threats to human health and the
environment. At federal facilities, the federal agency determined to have caused the
contamination pays for the cleanup out of its budget, subject to appropriations by
Congress. Although Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) are liable for cleanup
costs at private sector sites, EPA’s Superfund account pays for the cleanup of sites
where there is no financially viable responsible party.
The adequacy of funding to clean up Superfund sites has been a longstanding
issue. Findings of independent studies that cleanup has been underfunded, and the
declining trend in completing construction of cleanup remedies, have motivated
support for greater resources. As passed by the House on May 18, 2006, the FY2007
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 5386, H.Rept.
109-465) would provide a total of $1.26 billion for EPA’s Superfund account (prior
to transfers to other accounts). This amount is $14.8 million more than the FY2006
appropriation, but $2.1 million less than the President’ s FY2007 request. Of the
total amount included in the House bill for the Superfund account, $832.9 million
would be for “actual” (i.e., physical) cleanup of contaminated sites, $1 million less
than the FY2006 appropriation and $10 million more than the President’s FY2007
request. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported (S.Rept. 109-275) a version
with amounts that were very similar to those passed by the House.
In earlier years, general Treasury revenues on average accounted for 17% to
20% of the total funding for the Superfund program, and the balance of the
appropriation came from a dedicated trust fund supported by taxes on industry.

---

CRS-11
Authority for collecting these taxes expired at the end of 1995, and the balance of the
trust fund declined from a high of $3.8 billion in FY1997 to essentially zero in
FY2004. Cost recoveries, penalties, and interest do continue to contribute some
revenues to the trust fund. However, these revenues have been relatively small,
resulting in the bulk of the appropriation being provided from general Treasury
revenues. There has been ongoing interest among some Members of Congress in
reinstating Superfund taxes on industry to reduce the reliance on general Treasury
revenues, and at least three bills were introduced to reinstate the taxes, none of which
has received committee action to date (H.R. 3584, H.R. 4199, S. 3503). (See CRS
Report RL31410, Superfund Taxes or General Revenues: Future Funding Options
for the Superfund Program, by Jonathan L. Ramseur, Mark Reisch, and James E.
McCarthy.)
Members have introduced numerous bills in both sessions that address various
cleanup issues under Superfund. None of the bills has received congressional action.
Three bills, including two offered in the second session, were introduced to
encourage cleanup at abandoned mines (H.R. 1265, H.R. 1266, S. 1848). One bill,
H.R. 2211, was introduced in the first session that would exempt gasoline service
station dealers from liability for cleanup of waste oil. Three bills addressed health
hazards from lead-based paint, giving priority consideration to Superfund sites in
awarding federal grants for remediation of this substance (H.R. 433, H.R. 434, S.
255). Members offered two bills to exclude manure from the definition of hazardous
substance (H.R. 4341, S. 3681).
After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, at least six bills were introduced to address
the use of Superfund authorities to respond to public health threats from releases of
hazardous substances that may have occurred during the two storms and subsequent
flooding (H.R. 3958, H.R. 4139, H.R. 4481, S. 1765, S. 1836, S. 1925). Two
resolutions also were introduced expressing the sense of the House and Senate that
the crisis of Hurricane Katrina should not be used as justification to waive or relax
environmental requirements in order to hasten redevelopment (H.Res. 477, S.Res.
261).
(For additional information on Superfund, see CRS Report RL33426,
Superfund: Overview and Selected Issues.)
Brownfield Issues. Amendments to CERCLA in 2002 (P.L. 107-118) also
authorize EPA to provide assistance to states and tribes for the cleanup of abandoned,
idled, or underutilized commercial and industrial sites, commonly referred to as
“brownfields.” Although brownfields typically are less contaminated than Superfund
sites, they often require cleanup to make them safe for redevelopment. The House
FY2007 Interior appropriations bill, noted above, approved the President’s FY2007
request of $163.3 million for EPA’s Brownfields program, a slight increase above the
FY2006 appropriation of $162.5 million (after rescissions). The version of H.R.
5386 that was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 109-293)
would also provide $163.3 million, thus matching the House bill and the
Administration’s request.
Funding authorization for EPA’s Brownfields Program is due to expire at the
end of FY2006. On July 28, 2006, the House Committee on Transportation and

---

CRS-12
Infrastructure reported H.R. 5810, which would extend the funding authorization
through 2012. H.R. 5810 would authorize the same funding levels as originally
provided in 2002.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also has a
Brownfields program, which emphasizes economic development projects and the
increase of business and job opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons.
As passed by the House (H.Rept. 109-495) and reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee (S.Rept. 109-293), H.R. 5576 — the FY2007 appropriations bill for HUD
and other agencies — would not provide any funding for HUD’s Brownfields
program for FY2007. In its report on H.R. 5576, the House Appropriations
Committee stated that HUD funding for brownfields is no longer “essential or
appropriate” because of “recent dramatic increases in funding” for EPA’s program
and due to expanded EPA authority in recent authorizations. However, the
elimination of HUD’s program raises questions regarding the adequacy of EPA’s
funding and authority to meet both cleanup and redevelopment needs.
During consideration of H.R. 5576 on the House floor, Members agreed to an
amendment offered by Representative Gary Miller (H.Amdt. 1013) to increase the
HUD Community Development Fund by $15 million, coupled with a $15 million
offset to another HUD account. Supporters of the amendment stated that the funds
would allow the HUD Brownfields program to continue, but the bill’s language does
not explicitly state the purpose of the increase.
If Congress ultimately eliminates funding for HUD’s Brownfields program,
owners of brownfields properties still may be eligible to compete for economic
redevelopment assistance provided through other HUD programs (e.g., Community
Development Block Grant Program). Moreover, the House report also earmarked
$700,000 for two specified brownfield sites, and the Senate report earmarked
$1,450,000 for seven named brownfield sites, despite the lack of funding for a
comprehensive program to address such needs.
In addition to funding, the 109th Congress has considered bills addressing the
cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. In the first session, P.L. 109-59 (H.R.
3) reauthorized funding for federal surface transportation programs and authorized
a pilot program to support planning activities for highway and public transportation
projects, including brownfields redevelopment planning. As passed by the House at
the end of the first session, H.R. 280 would make HUD brownfields grants more
accessible to smaller communities.
In the second session, Congress passed budget reconciliation legislation that was
signed by the President on May 17, 2006 (P.L. 109-222, H.R. 4297). The House and
Senate versions of this legislation would have extended (for two years and one year,
respectively) tax incentives (expired as of January 1, 2006) meant to encourage the
redevelopment of brownfields. The bill agreed to in conference, which subsequently
passed both chambers, did not extend these tax incentives. However, separate tax
legislation (H.R. 5970, the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006) that
passed the House on July 29, 2006, would reinstate the tax incentives until 2007.
Members offered two bills in the first session and one in the second that would

---

CRS-13
provide tax credits for brownfield cleanup costs, but they have not received
committee action.
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, a number of 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 the possible costs
associated with addressing those impacts) and the impact that compliance with
environmental requirements can have on project delivery.
The key environmental provisions in SAFETEA generally 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 that DOT will be required to follow to comply with the Clean Air Act’s
(42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) conformity 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), by Linda Luther, and CRS Report RL32106, Transportation
Conformity Under the Clean Air Act: In Need of Reform? by James E. McCarthy.)
Chemicals: Security and Regulatory Issues
(By Linda Schierow, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7279)
The 109th Congress is considering how best to ensure enhanced security against
terrorism for privately owned facilities storing or handling large quantities of
potentially dangerous chemicals. Several bills have been introduced that 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, S. 2145/H.R. 4999, H.R. 5695, and S. 2486 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, H.R. 5695,

---

CRS-14
and S. 2486 also would require consideration and use of “inherently safer”
technologies, if practicable.
S. 2145 was amended and approved by the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee on June 15, 2006. As approved, S. 2145 would
direct DHS to establish security performance standards for facilities based on relative
risk and would allow facility owners to develop site-specific security measures to
meet those standards. On July 28, 2006, the full Homeland Security Committee
amended H.R. 5695 and ordered it to be reported. Similar in many ways to S. 2145,
H.R. 5695 is described as more “streamlined.” Two differences between the bills
appear to be controversial. First, H.R. 5695 would allow the DHS Secretary to
require a high-risk facility to use inherently safer technology (IST), if the Secretary
determined that incorporation of IST into the facility would significantly reduce the
consequences of terrorist actions, would be feasible, and would not significantly
impair the ability of the owner to continue in business. The Senate bill does not
address IST. A second difference is that under H.R. 5695, state and local laws would
be preempted if they “may frustrate the purposes of this title or any regulations or
standards prescribed under this title.” Under S. 2145, state and local laws would be
preempted if they conflicted with the federal law.
Congress enacted H.R. 2360, which became P.L. 109-90, providing
appropriations for FY2006 to the DHS. The conference report for the bill required
DHS to complete a national security strategy for the chemical sector and submit a
report by February 10, 2006, on the resources needed to establish and implement
security requirements and ensure compliance by the regulated facilities. The
conferees also directed the Secretary to complete vulnerability assessments for the
highest risk chemical facilities by December 2006. Other bills aim to enhance
security for agricultural businesses (S. 2052/H.R. 713) and wastewater treatment
facilities (S. 1995) and to secure supplies of ammonium nitrate, an explosive (H.R.
3197/S. 1141, H.R. 1389). H.R. 3197 was approved by the House Homeland
Security Committee on June 14, 2006. Some of the provisions of H.R. 3197/S. 1141
were incorporated as an amendment into S. 2145 on June 15, 2006. (Also see CRS
Report RL31530, Chemical Facility Security, and CRS Report RL33447, Senate
Proposals to Enhance Chemical Facility Security, both by Linda-Jo Schierow, and
CRS Report RL33043, Legislative Approaches to Chemical Facility Security, by
Dana A. Shea.)
Legislation that would allow implementation of the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) has been ordered to be reported by the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.R. 4591) and by the House Committee on
Agriculture (H.R. 3849). 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, enabling legislation is necessary prior to U.S. ratification. Four bills have
been introduced into the 109th Congress. H.R. 3849 and S. 2042 would amend the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which governs
pesticidal uses of the chemicals. H.R. 4591 and H.R. 4800 would amend the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), which more generally authorizes EPA regulation
of U.S. commerce in chemicals. The Administration and the chemical industry have
been urging Congress to enact implementing legislation for several years, but

---

CRS-15
particular legislative provisions have been controversial, especially with regard to
proposed changes to EPA’s existing regulatory authority for POPs under TSCA and
FIFRA. However, on July 12, 2006, H.R. 4591 was amended and approved by the
House Energy and Commerce Committee. On July 27, 2006, the House Committee
on Agriculture ordered H.R. 3849 to be reported. (See CRS Report RS22379,
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS): Fact Sheet on Three International
Agreements, and CRS Report RL33336, Implementing International Agreements on
Persistent, Organic Pollutants (POPs): Proposed Amendments to the Toxic
Substances Control Act, both by Linda-Jo Schierow.)
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
(By David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390)
The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for cleaning up contamination
and complying with other environmental requirements on approximately 29 million
acres of military lands in the United States. 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 on former nuclear
weapons sites. The first session of the 109th Congress enacted the FY2006
appropriations bills that fund these activities, including funding for the cleanup of
closed military bases (P.L. 109-114, H.R. 2528), active installations and other former
military properties (P.L. 109-148, H.R. 2863), and former nuclear weapons sites (P.L.
109-103, H.R. 2419). The first session also enacted FY2006 defense authorization
legislation (P.L. 109-163, H.R. 1815), which included specific funding authorizations
for cleanup of military lands and former nuclear weapons sites.
Attention in the second session has turned to authorization and appropriation of
funds for FY2007. The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2007 (H.R. 5122, H.Rept. 109-452) on May 11, 2006; the Senate passed its
version of the bill (S. 2766, S.Rept. 109-254) on June 22, 2006. Both bills were in
conference as of the August recess. This legislation would authorize funding for
cleanup on current and former military lands and former nuclear weapons sites,
although in differing amounts. Both bills also include numerous environmental
provisions, such as a requirement for a study of the past disposal of chemical and
conventional munitions in the ocean. (See CRS Report RL33432, U.S. Disposal of
Chemical Weapons in the Ocean: Background and Issues for Congress, by David M.
Bearden.) S. 2766 also includes a requirement for DOD to prepare a comprehensive
plan for cleaning up munitions on the land, according to time frames specified in that
bill. However, these time frames would constitute non-binding goals, rather than
enforceable requirements.
In addition to authorization legislation, consideration of FY2007 defense
appropriations is underway. On May 19, 2006, the House passed the FY2007
Military Quality of Life, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
(H.R. 5385, H.Rept. 109-464). This bill would appropriate funding for numerous
military activities, including cleanup of active military installations, closed bases, and
other former military lands. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its
version of H.R. 5385 (S.Rept. 109-286) on July 20, 2006, including funding for
cleanup of closed bases, but not active installations and other former military lands.
In the Senate, cleanup of these latter sites is funded within the DOD annual

---

CRS-16
appropriations bill, because of differences in subcommittee jurisdiction. The Senate
Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2007 DOD appropriations
bill (H.R. 5631, S.Rept. 109-292) on July 25, 2006. In addition to these bills, the
House passed the FY2007 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill (H.R.
5427, H.Rept. 109-474) on May 24, 2006; the Senate Appropriations Committee
reported its version of this bill (S.Rept. 109-274) on June 29, 2006. This bill would
appropriate funding for civil water projects and the Department of Energy (DOE),
including DOE’s cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites. (See the “Environmental
Management” section in CRS Report RL33346, Energy and Water Development:
FY2007 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl E. Behrens.)
The adequacy of funding to clean up contamination on military lands is a long-
standing issue. Although DOD is required to clean up all contaminated lands within
its jurisdiction, closed bases have been of particular concern because cleanup
generally must occur before the land can be transferred for civilian reuse. Most of
the land on bases closed in past rounds from 1988 through 1995 has been cleaned up
and transferred for redevelopment. However, some of the land has yet to be cleaned
up and has been awaiting transfer for many years — over a decade in some instances.
The closure of additional bases approved in the 2005 round will increase the
inventory of military properties slated for civilian reuse. There has been rising
interest among affected communities in the extent to which contamination on these
properties could delay or affect the potential for economic redevelopment to replace
lost jobs. (See CRS Report RS22065, Military Base Closures: Role and Costs of
Environmental Cleanup, by David M. Bearden.)
Another issue affecting DOD has been whether broader environmental
exemptions than provided in current law are necessary to preserve military training
capabilities. The 107th and 108th Congresses enacted the exemptions from certain
wildlife protection requirements that DOD requested. However, Congress has not
enacted exemptions from certain air quality and hazardous waste cleanup
requirements that DOD also has sought since FY2003. These exemptions have been
controversial, based on concerns about human health risks. DOD requested these
exemptions again in its FY2007 defense authorization proposal, but none of the
above FY2007 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, by David M.
Bearden.)
The adequacy and pace of cleanup at former nuclear weapons sites also is a
long-standing issue. DOE has disposed of substantial volumes of radioactive and
hazardous wastes and remediated contamination in buildings, soil, and groundwater
at many nuclear weapons sites. However, sites with the greatest cleanup challenges
are not scheduled for completion until more than a decade from now, with the last
sites not expected to be complete until 2035. Among the most complex and costliest
needs are the removal and disposal of high-level radioactive wastes stored in
underground tanks at three sites, including Hanford in Washington State, Savannah
River in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory. The extent to which
these wastes can be removed safely from the tanks to prepare them for closure has
been of particular concern among Members of Congress, affected states, and
environmental organizations. (See CRS Report RS21988, Radioactive Tank Waste

---

CRS-17
from the Past Production of Nuclear Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress,
by David M. Bearden and Anthony Andrews.)
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 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 on
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. As discussed above, 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). 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 focuses on
research on hydrogen fuel and fuel cells — through the Hydrogen Fuel and
FreedomCAR initiatives. For FY2006, Congress appropriated approximately $340
million for these initiatives, about $20 million below the Administration’s request
(Energy and Water Appropriations bill, P.L. 109-103). In his January 2006 State of
the Union address, President Bush also announced a new Biofuels Initiative to
promote R&D on fuels produced from biomass. The administration is requesting
$150 million for this initiative in FY2007, which is a 65% increase above FY2006.
(For further discussion, see CRS Issue Brief IB10128, Alternative Fuels and
Vehicles: Issues in Congress, by Brent D. Yacobucci.)
Recent high gasoline prices in spring 2006 have led to increased interest in
alternative fuels, especially ethanol. A rapid voluntary phase-out of MTBE by
refiners, along with the transition from winter to summer air quality specifications,

---

CRS-18
put a strain on gasoline and ethanol supplies. These supply issues raised interest in
simplifying U.S. gasoline supply system, which has been criticized as a “patchwork”
or federal and state regulations. (For more information, see CRS Report RL31361,
“Boutique Fuels” and Reformulated Gasoline: Harmonization of Gasoline
Standards, by Brent D. Yacobucci.) The tight supply for ethanol raised interest by
some Members in postponing the implementation of the RFS established in P.L. 109-
58. Questions were also raised on the effects of eliminating import duties for ethanol
from countries such as Brazil.
Table 1. Environmental Protection Legislation Passed in
the 109th Congress
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 3 (P.L. 109-59)
Signed by the President
Among other provisions, amends
The Safe, Accountable,
August 10, 2005
the Clean Air Act conformity
Flexible and Efficient
(H. Report 109-203)
provisions and specifies
Transportation Equity Act of
procedures to perform
2005: A Legacy for Users
environmental reviews under
(SAFETEA-LU)
NEPA 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)
Signed by the President
An omnibus energy bill. Various
Energy Policy Act of 2005
August 8, 2005
environmental provisions include
(H.Rept. 109-190)
expediting permitting,
amendments to the Clean Air Act
fuels requirements, funding for
MTBE cleanup, and a renewable
fuels standard (RFS).
H.R. 280
Passed the House
Makes HUD brownfields grants
Brownfields Redevelopment
December 13, 2005
more accessible to smaller
Enhancement Act
(H.Rept. 109-138)
communities. Establishes a pilot
program that includes brownfield
planning.
H.R. 1721
Passed the House
Amends the Clean Water Act to
Coastal Recreation Water
December 7, 2005
reauthorize coastal recreation
Quality and Monitoring
(H.Rept. 109-292)
water quality programs (Section
406)
H.R. 1815 (P.L. 109-163)
Signed by the President
Authorized funding for national
National Defense
January 6, 2006
defense programs, including
Authorization Act for
(H.Rept. 109-360)
environmental cleanup at active,
FY2006
closed, and other former military
installations, and former defense
nuclear weapons sites. Did not
include exemptions from the
Clean Air Act, Solid Waste
Disposal Act, and CERCLA that
DOD had requested.

---

CRS-19
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 2361 (P.L. 109-54)
Signed by the President
Funds EPA at $7.73 billion for
Interior, Environment and
August 2, 2005
FY2006 (subject to a 0.476%
Related Agencies
(H.Rept. 109-188)
across-the-board rescission and a
Appropriations Act FY2006
1% government-wide recision in
P.L. 109-148).
H.R. 2419 (P.L. 109-103)
Signed by the President
Appropriated funding for
Energy and Water
November 19, 2005
environmental cleanup at former
Development Appropriations (H.Rept. 109-275)
defense nuclear weapons sites.
Act for FY2006
H.R. 2528 (P.L. 109-114)
Signed by the President
Appropriated funding for
Military Quality of Life,
November 30, 2005
national defense programs,
Military Construction,
(H.Rept. 109-305)
including environmental cleanup
Veterans Affairs and Related
at closed military installations.
Agencies Appropriations Act
for FY2006
H.R. 2863 (P.L. 109-148)
Signed by the President
Appropriated funding for
Department of Defense
December 30, 2005
national defense programs,
Appropriations Act for
(H. Rept 109-359)
including funding for cleanup of
FY2006
active and former military
installations. Included a 1%
government-wide recision and
reallocated $8 million to EPA for
responding to leaking
underground storage tanks in
areas affected by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
H.R. 3893
Passed the House
A bill to expedite the
Gasoline for America’s
October 7, 2005
construction of new U.S. refining
Security Act of 2005
(H.Rept. 109-244)
capacity. Among other
provisions, the bill would
streamline federal permitting and
limit the number of fuel blends
nationwide.
H.R. 3963 (P.L. 109-137)
Signed by the President
Amends the Clean Water Act to
Long Island Sound
December 22, 2005
reauthorize the Long Island
Authorization of
(H.Rept. 109-293)
Sound Program (Sec. 119)
Appropriations
H.R. 4939 (P.L. 109-234)
Signed by the President
Increased EPA’s FY2006
Emergency Supplemental
June 15, 2006
appropriation by $13 million for
Appropriations Act for
(H.Rept. 109-494)
activities to protect public health
FY2006
and respond to leaking
underground tanks in areas
affected by Hurricane Katrina
and other hurricanes in the 2005
season.
H.R. 5122
Passed the House
Would authorize funding for
National Defense
May 11, 2006
national defense programs,
Authorization Act for
(H.Rept. 109-452)
including cleanup on military
FY2007
lands and former nuclear
weapons sites. Includes
numerous other environmental
provisions, but does not include
exemptions from air quality and
cleanup requirements DOD
requested.

---

CRS-20
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 5385
Passed the House
Would appropriate funding for
FY2007 Military Quality of
May 19, 2006
military and other activities,
Life, Veterans Affairs, and
(H.Rept. 109-464)
including cleanup on military
Related Agencies
lands. Does not include
appropriations bill
exemptions from air quality and
cleanup requirements DOD
requested.
H.R. 5386
Passed the House
Would appropriate funding for
FY2007 Interior,
May 18, 2006
the Environmental Protection
Environment, and Related
(H.Rept. 109-465)
Agency (EPA) and numerous
Agencies appropriations bill
other agencies.
H.R. 5427
Passed the House
Would appropriate funding for
FY2007 Energy and Water
May 24, 2006
the Department of Energy’s
Development appropriations
(H.Rept. 109-474)
cleanup of former nuclear
bill
weapons sites.
H.R. 5970
Passed the House
Would extend until the end of
Estate Tax and Extension of
July 29, 2006
2007 the tax incentives for
Tax Relief Act of 2006
(No written report)
brownfield remediation costs that
expired at the end of 2005.
S. 1709
Passed by Senate September
Adds flexibility to the clean
Gulf Coast Emergency
27, 2005 (no written report)
water and drinking water state
Water Assistance Act
revolving fund programs to
facilitate use of funds to repair
water infrastructure damaged by
Hurricane Katrina or related
conditions.
S. 2766
Passed the Senate
Would authorize funding for
National Defense
June 22, 2006
national defense programs,
Authorization Act for
(S.Rept. 109-254)
including cleanup on military
FY2007
lands and former nuclear
weapons sites. Includes
numerous other environmental
provisions, but does not include
exemptions from air quality and
cleanup requirements DOD
requested.

---