Order Code IB10067
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 107th Congress
Updated September 12, 2002
Margaret M. Isler and Martin R. Lee
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Clean Air Act (by James McCarthy)
Chemical Plant Security (by Linda Schierow)
Surface Transportation and the Environment(by David Bearden)
Clean Water Act Issues (by Claudia Copeland)
Safe Drinking Water Act (by Mary Tiemann)
Superfund and Brownfields(by Mark Reisch)
Solid Waste Issues(by James McCarthy)
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs (by David Bearden)
Global Climate Change (by Susan Fletcher)
Regulating Pesticides (by Linda Schierow)
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency (by Martin R. Lee)
Environmental Research and Development (by Michael Simpson)

---

IB10067
09-12-02
Environmental Protection Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress has acted on legisla-
Department of Housing and Urban
tion relating to specific Superfund, pesticides,
Development’s brownfields program. The
water infrastructure, chemical plant security,
Senate Environment and Public Works Com-
drinking water, solid waste, climate change,
mittee reported S. 1079 on April 25, 2002, to
environmental science and technology,
provide $60 million per year for the Economic
defense environmental activities and funding
Development Administration’s brownfield
issues.
program.

Clean Air. The impact of air quality regula-
Solid/Hazardous Wastes. The House passed
tions on energy production; gasoline additives;
a provision in H.R. 4 authorizing tax credits
air quality standards; and emissions from coal-
for the production of energy from landfill gas.
fired power plants are current issues. The
The Senate passed S. 351 limiting the use of
Senate Environment and Public Works Com-
mercury thermometers and encouraging
mittee approved multi-pollutant legislation (S.
proper management of mercury.
556) June 27, 2002 . P.L. 107-87 (H.R. 2299)
funds environmental streamlining initiatives
Defense Cleanup. Congress has acted on
for transportation. S. 1602, as reported, would
annual FY2002 authorization and appropria-
require EPA to identify high priority chemical
tion legislation on environmental programs at
risks.
the Department of Defense. Action on
FY2003 legislation is underway.
Water Issues. The House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee has approved a bill
Global Climate Change. The main issue is
to extend the Clean Water Act’s funding
oversight of the Administration’s proposal for
through FY2007 (H.R. 3930); the Senate
voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse
Environment and Public Works Committee
gases. House-passed H.R. 4 would authorize
has approved similar legislation (S. 1961).
the Climate Protection Programs at EPA.
Action has occurred on water infrastructure
Foreign Relations authorization bills include
security bills. The House passed H.R. 1070 on
language to encourage U.S. leadership.
toxic sediment contamination. Continued
oversight of the implementation of the Safe
Pesticides. The Senate passed H.R. 1, which
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) can be ex-
contains a provision requiring state pesticide
pected. Various related program and regula-
management plans. H.R. 2581 would prohibit
tory deadlines will occur during this Congress.
the export of certain pesticides.
P.L. 107-188 authorizes drinking water vul-
nerability assessment funds. House-passed
EPA Budget. P.L. 107-73 (H.R. 2620)
H.R. 4 and S. 950, as reported, address MTBE
included $7.9 billion for FY2002; the FY2003
issues.
request is $7.7 billion. P.L. 107-117 (H.R.
3338, Div. B) included $176 million for EPA
Superfund. Congress enacted P.L. 107-118,
terrorist-related FY2002 activities. On July 25,
the Small Business Liability Relief and
the Senate Committee on Appropriations
Brownfield Revitalization. On June 4, 2002,
approved in S. 2797 (S.Rept. 107-222) $8.3
the House passed H.R. 2941 to enhance the
billion for EPA.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10067
09-12-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The 107th Congress acted on several environmental protection bills in the first session.
Congress enacted P.L. 107-118 (H.R. 2869), the Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act. There has been action on bills related to the security of water
infrastructure facilities (H.R. 3178, S. 1593, H.R. 3448, S. 1608). A House Science
Subcommittee recommended H.R. 64, creating a Deputy EPA Administrator for Science. The
Senate passed a provision in S. 1 requiring state pesticide management plans. The House
International Relations Committee approved H.R. 2581, requiring state pesticide
management plans. On climate change, H.R. 4 authorizes programs at EPA. It also
authorizes $200 million to cleanup MTBE in drinking water and authorizes tax credits for
the production of energy from landfill gas. Senate Environment and Public Works-approved
S. 950 amends the Clean Air Act and Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize corrective
actions, allow controls on fuel additives, and allow waiving of oxygen content requirements.
Funding bills were enacted
In the second session, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has
approved a bill to extend the Clean Water Act’s funding through FY2007 (H.R. 3930); the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved similar legislation (S.
1961). The House passed H.R. 1070 on toxic sediment contamination. The Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee narrowly approved multi pollutant legislation (S.
556) June 27, 2002. S. 1602, as reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works would require EPA to identify high priority chemical risks and to issue
regulations requiring owners and operators of stationary sources to take actions to prevent,
control, and minimize the potential consequences of a release. The Senate passed S. 351
limiting the use of mercury thermometers and encouraging proper management of mercury.
To authorize and fund various defense-related environmental programs, Congress is acting
on the FY2003 defense authorization bill, and the three related appropriations bills: defense,
military construction, and energy and water. The House passed H.R. 2941 on June 4, 2002,
a bill to enhance municipalities’ ability to take advantage of the Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development’s brownfields program. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
reported S. 1079 on April 25, 2002, to provide $60 million per year for the Economic
Development Administration’s brownfield program. The Senate-passed farm bill, S. 1731,
included provisions on school pesticide management plans and pesticide fees, which were
dropped in conference. . The Senate Committee on the Budget reported S.Con.Res. 100
which includes a Sense of the Senate on full funding for Superfund. On July 25, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations approved in S. 2797 (S.Rept. 107-222) $8.3 billion for EPA.
P.L. 107-206 (H.R. 4775) would have appropriated to EPA $50 million for drinking water
vulnerability assessments if the President requests them as emergency funds.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The 106th Congress acted on several environmental protection bills. The focus was on
legislation addressing specific clean water activities, and funding of environmental protection
activities. (For a description of environmental protection laws, see CRS Report RL30798,
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency.)
CRS-1

---

IB10067
09-12-02
The approach of the 107th Congress to environmental protection issues depends on the
priorities of the leadership, several committee chairs, and the new Administration. The
authorizations for most environmental protection programs have expired, although programs
authorities remain in effect and funding is continued. Table 1 shows major legislation of the
107th Congress.
Table 1. Major Environmental Protection Legislation
in the 107th Congress
Superfund
P.L. 107- 118 (H.R. 2869)
Signed 01/11/02
Provides certain relief for small
businesses under Superfund,
promotes the cleanup and reuse
of brownfields, provides
financial assistance for
brownfields revitalization
S. 350
Passed Senate 04/25/01
Establishes a Brownfields
Program
H.R. 1831
Passed House 05/22/01
Provides liability relief for small
business
H.R. 2941
Passed House 06/4/02
HUD Brownfield Program
S. 1079
Approved 04/25/02
Economic Development
Administration Brownfield
Assistance
Pesticides
H.R. 1
Passed Senate 06/14/01
Requires state pesticide
management plans
H.R. 2581
Reported from House
Prohibits export of certain
International Relations 11/16/01
pesticides and chemicals
S.1731
Passed Senate 02/13/02
Includes provisions on school
(dropped in conference)
pesticide management plans and
pesticide fees.
Air Quality
S. 556
Approved by Senate
Requires power plants to reduce
Environment and Public Works
several pollutants
06/27/02
Chemical Plant Security
S. 1602
Approved by Senate Committee
Requires EPA to identify high
on Environment and Public
priority chemical risks and to
Works 07/25/02
issue regulations requiring
owners and operators of
stationary sources to take actions
to prevent, control, and
minimize the potential
consequences of a release
Water Quality
H.R. 3930
Approved by House
Extends Clean Water Act
Transportation and
funding
Infrastructure
CRS-2

---

IB10067
09-12-02
S. 1961
Approved by Senate
Extends wastewater and drinking
Environment and Public Works
water funding .
H.R. 1070
Passed House 09/04/02
Contaminated sediment
legislation.
Drinking Water/Air/MTBE
P.L. 107-188, H.R. 3448
Signed 06/12/02
Authorizes $120 million for
vulnerability assessments and
emergency response plans to
protect drinking water systems
H.R. 4, §504
Passed House 08/02/01
Authorizes $200 million to clean
up MTBE at underground tanks
S. 950
Reported by Senate
Amends Clean Air Act and Solid
Environment and Public Works
Waste Disposal Act to authorize
12/20/01 (S.Rept. 107-131)
corrective actions, inspections.
Allows States to impose
controls on fuel additives, and to
waive oxygen content
requirements.
H.R. 3178
Passed House 12/18/01
Authorize EPA to fund research
and development projects for the
security of water infrastructure
S. 1593
Reported by Senate
Authorizes an EPA
Environment and Public Works
grant program to support
12/10/02 (S.Rept. 107-118)
research on protecting water
infrastructure
H.R. 3930
Approved by House
Authorizes wastewater
Transportation and
infrastructure funds.
Infrastructure Committee
03/20/02
S. 1608
Passed Senate 12/20/01
Establishes a grants program for
drinking water and wastewater
facilities to meet immediate
security needs
Solid Waste
H.R. 4, §3306
Passed House 08/02/01
Tax credits for the production of
Passed Senate 04/25/02
energy from landfill gas; Senate
version encourages the
production of ethanol from
municipal solid waste.
S. 351
Passed Senate 09/09/02
Authorizes programs to limit use
of mercury thermometers.
Climate Change
H.R. 1646
Passed House 05/16/01
Encourages U.S. leadership to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and continue participating in
climate change negotiations
H.R. 4, Div. B, Subtitle G
Passed House 08/02/01
Both versions authorize EPA
Passed Senate 04/25/02
climate programs; Senate
version establishes Office of
National Climate Change Policy
to develop a climate change
response strategy; Senate
version establishes a voluntary
greenhouse gas database
CRS-3

---

IB10067
09-12-02
H.R. 2460
Reported from House Science
Authorizes EPA Climate
(H.Rept. 107-177), 07/31/01
Programs
EPA Funding
P.L. 107-73 (H.R. 2620)
Signed 11/26/01
FY2002 funding for all EPA
programs
P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Div
Signed 01/10/02
Appropriates $176 million in
B)
FY2002 funds for EPA terrorist-
related activities
P.L. 107-206 (H.R. 4775)
Signed 08/02/02
Would appropriated to EPA
$50 million for FY2002 funds
for drinking water vulnerability
assessments if President requests
them as emergency funds;
S. 2797
Reported 07/25/02 by Senate
Appropriates $8.3 billion for the
Committee on Appropriations
EPA for FY2003
(S. Rept. 107-222)
Environmental Science and Technology
H.R. 64
Passed House 05/30/02
Establishes an EPA Deputy
Administrator for Science and
Technology
Defense Environmental Programs
P.L. 107-117 (H.R3338)
Signed 01/10/02
Defense Appropriations for
FY2002 and Emergency
Supplemental
P.L. 107-64 (H.R. 2904)
Signed 11/05/01
Military Construction
Appropriations contains funding
for cleaning up base closure sites
P.L. 107-66 (H.R. 2311)
Signed 11/12/01
Energy and Water
Appropriations, contains funding
for defense-related nuclear waste
management
P.L. 107-107 (S.1438)
Signed 12/28/01
Defense Authorization Act for
FY2002.
H.R. 4546
In conference.
Defense Authorization Act
FY2003
S. 2514
Passed Senate 06/27/02
Defense Authorization Act
FY2003
H.R. 5010
Passed House 06/27/02
DOD Appropriations FY2003
Passed Senate 08/01/02
H.R. 5011
Passed House 06/27/02
Military Construction
Passed Senate 07/18/02
Appropriations FY2003
S. 2784
Reported from Senate
Energy and Water
Appropriations 07/24/02
Appropriations FY2003
P.L 107-206 (H.R. 4775)
Signed 08/02/02
Provides supplemental funding
of $70 million in FY2002 for
security at DOE defense nuclear
waste cleanup sites
Environmental Streamlining Funding
P.L. 107-87 (H.R. 2299)
Passed House 06/26/01
DOT Appropriations includes
Passed Senate 08/01/01
funds for environmental
streamlining initiatives
CRS-4

---

IB10067
09-12-02
Clean Air Act (by James McCarthy)
Clean air issues were discussed at length in the first session of the 107th Congress, but
little action was taken, and the prospects for action in the second session remain uncertain.
The most prominent air quality issue has been whether state and federal regulations designed
to protect air quality have had a negative impact on energy production. Of particular interest
are the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review requirements, which some argue have prevented
power plants from making improvements that would expand power output. A related issue
is whether Congress should modify Clean Air Act requirements for power plants by enacting
“multi-pollutant” legislation, which, it is argued, would both reduce emissions and encourage
investment in new plants by providing certainty regarding future regulatory requirements.
Both the House and Senate have passed comprehensive energy legislation, H.R. 4, but
neither version of the bill contains provisions addressing these issues. The Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee narrowly approved multi-pollutant legislation
(S. 556) June 27, 2002, however. The bill would require power plants to reduce emissions
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide. The Administration and
much of the electric power industry oppose the bill, and its prospects are uncertain.
A second set of air issues Congress is considering concerns regulation of the gasoline
additive MTBE. MTBE is used to meet Clean Air Act requirements that gasoline sold in the
nation’s worst ozone nonattainment areas contain at least 2% oxygen, but the additive has
been implicated in numerous incidents of ground water contamination. The Senate version
of H.R. 4, passed April 25, 2002, bans the use of MTBE in gasoline within 4 years,
eliminates the 2% oxygen requirement, preserves the emission reductions achieved by
reformulated gasoline, and requires a tripling of the use of ethanol or other renewable fuels
in motor vehicles by 2012. The House does not have comparable requirements in its version
of H.R. 4 – one of many areas in which the House and Senate-passed bills differ. On August
1, 2001, the House rejected an attempt to exempt California from the oxygen requirement
(the Cox amendment to H.R. 4) on a vote of 300-125. (For additional information on clean
air issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10065, Clean Air Act Issues in the 107th Congress.)
Chemical Plant Security (by Linda Schierow)
The 107th Congress is considering legislation to reduce risks of terrorism at facilities
handling large quantities of potentially dangerous chemicals. Such facilities might be
vulnerable to direct attacks or covert use of business contacts, facilities, and materials to
gain access to chemicals. Risks may be increasing, consequences for human health and the
environment could be severe, and limited evidence suggests that many chemical facilities
may lack adequate safeguards. Policy makers face three key issues: the effect of public
access to information about facilities’ hazards and risk management plans; the relative
importance of diverse risks; and who should be responsible for achieving results. For more
on this topic, see CRS Report RL31530, Chemical Plant Security.
S. 1602, as reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and
House companion H.R. 5300 would require EPA, in consultation with the Office (or
Department) of Homeland Security, to identify high priority chemical risks and to issue
regulations requiring owners and operators of stationary sources to take actions to prevent,
CRS-5

---

IB10067
09-12-02
control, and minimize the potential consequences of a release. Facilities would be required
to consider chemical and process changes that enhance inherent safety. The bill would
exempt vulnerability assessments and risk management plans from Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requirements. H.R. 4698 would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to issue
licenses to qualified persons and to restrict the sale, purchase, and distribution of certain
chemicals to licensees, who would be required to maintain records of transactions. S. 2579
would amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the names and locations of facilities from
publicly available facility risk management plans. Public disclosure of such information by
government officials would be a crime, and release under FOIA would be prohibited. The
bill would expand official access to the plans and ensure representation of environmental
groups on Local Emergency Planning Committees.
H.R.5005, as passed by the House, and S. 2452, as approved by the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, also would exempt from FOIA requirements some
information about “critical infrastructure” vulnerability. House-passed H.R. 5005 and S.
2452 would direct a new Department of Homeland Security to analyze vulnerabilities and
recommend methods of enhancing site security. However, it is not clear whether chemical
facilities are part of the “critical infrastructure” or covered by these proposals.
Surface Transportation and the Environment
(by David Bearden)
Meeting public needs for surface transportation, while ensuring that the protection of
the environment is not comprised, has been a longstanding issue among states and affected
communities in local areas. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21, P.L.
105-178) authorized funding for federal highway and mass transit programs from FY1998
to FY2003, and set aside approximately $12.5 billion for several programs to mitigate the
environmental impacts of surface transportation. Most of this funding is reserved for air
quality projects to assist states in complying with federal air quality standards. The law also
increased funding for environmentally related transportation enhancements, established
several new programs, and required that the environmental review process for highway
projects be streamlined. (CRS Report 98-646 ENR, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (P.L. 105-178): An Overview of Environmental Protection Provisions, discusses
each of these programs.)
In the 107th Congress, several oversight hearings have been held to examine the
Department of Transportation’s implementation of TEA21, and oversight of the law’s
environmental provisions has focused on the implementation of requirements to streamline
the environmental review process for highway projects. While the law did not specify a
deadline for meeting these requirements, some Members of Congress have expressed
concerns over the pace at which implementation has proceeded. Thus far, the Department
of Transportation has proposed regulations for a coordinated environmental review process
that address some of the provisions of TEA21, signed a National Memorandum of
Understanding with six other federal agencies, and established a pilot program to gain
practical experiences in exercising the principles of streamlining.
CRS-6

---

IB10067
09-12-02
The President’s budget proposal includes $6 million to support the Department of
Transportation’s streamlining initiatives in FY2003, about $3 million more than in FY2002.
As reported, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2003 (S. 2808, S. Rept. 107-224) does not indicate how much funding would be provided
for streamlining projects. In addition to federal efforts, numerous states are implementing
a variety of demonstration projects that may help to identify environmental requirements
earlier in the planning stage and speed the review process. Congressional oversight of this
issue will likely continue as the Department of Transportation proceeds with its streamlining
initiatives and as Congress considers the reauthorization of TEA21, which expires at the end
of FY2003. (CRS Report RS20841, Environmental Streamlining Provisions in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Status of Implementation, provides additional
information.)
Clean Water Act Issues (by Claudia Copeland)
Key water quality issues that face the 107th Congress include: actions to implement
existing provisions of the Clean Water Act (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 activities. The CWA is the principal law that governs pollution in the
nation’s lakes, rivers, and coastal waters and authorizes funds to aid construction of
municipal wastewater treatment plants. Senate and House committees have begun to
consider legislation on water infrastructure funding. The House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee has approved a bill to extend the Act’s funding program through
FY2007 (H.R. 3930); the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved
similar legislation (S. 1961). The House has also passed H.R. 1070, the Great Lakes Legacy
Act, which would authorize contaminated sediment monitoring, remediation and prevention
projects. (For information, see CRS Report RL31344, Water Infrastructure Financing
Legislation: Comparison of S. 1961 and H.R. 3930.)
The Act was last comprehensively amended in 1987, and authorizations for most
programs expired on September 30, 1990. Activities under the Act continue, however, as
Congress has regularly appropriated funds to implement the law. Although no
comprehensive reauthorization legislation was enacted during the 106th Congress, activity
on bills dealing with specific water quality issues did occur, and oversight hearings on some
existing provisions of the Act and Clinton Administration water quality initiatives were held.
Implementation of the law since 1972 has led to significant water quality improvements:
about 60% of waters surveyed by states are clean enough to support basic uses such as
fishing and swimming. However, the same survey data indicate that about 40% of surface
waters fail to meet standards. Nevertheless, the Clean Water Act has been viewed as one of
the nation’s most successful environmental laws in terms of achieving the statutory goals,
which have been widely supported by the public, but lately has been criticized by some over
whether further benefits are worth the costs.
Many Clean Water Act issues that might be addressed involve making difficult tradeoffs
between impacts on different sectors of the economy, taking action when there is technical
or scientific uncertainty, and allocating governmental responsibilities for implementing the
law. Some observers speculate that, rather than taking up comprehensive CWA
CRS-7

---

IB10067
09-12-02
reauthorization legislation as it has traditionally done, Congress might consider only
narrower bills to modify selected CWA programs, as was the case in the 106th Congress.
Among broader clean water issues, topics that might be of interest include implementation
of current programs for developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to restore pollution-
impaired waters, managing animal wastes to minimize water quality and public health
impacts, and measures to address polluted runoff from farms and city streets. Impacts of the
Act’s wetlands permit program, a contentious issue in the recent past, also remain on the
legislative agenda for many.
More generally, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, congressional attention has focused on security, preparedness, and
emergency response issues. One topic of interest is protection of the nation’s water
infrastructure facilities (both drinking water and wastewater) from possible physical damage,
biological/chemical attacks, and cyber disruption. (For information, see CRS Report
RS21026, Terrorist and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector.)
Policymakers are considering a number of legislative options in this area, including enhanced
physical security, communication and coordination, and research. In December, Congress
appropriated $176 million in funds to EPA for water infrastructure and other security
activities (P.L. 107-117), and in May, Congress passed legislation authorizing funding for
drinking water utility vulnerability assessments (P.L. 107-188). (For further information, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10069, Clean Water Act Issues in the 107th Congress.)
Safe Drinking Water Act (by Mary Tiemann)
The 107th Congress has continued oversight of the implementation of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), the principal federal statute for regulating the quality of water provided
by public water systems, last reauthorized in 1996. A key oversight issue has involved
drinking water infrastructure needs and funding. Since September 11, infrastructure
discussions and legislation also have focused on the security of the Nation’s water supplies.
A major SDWA issue has concerned the ability of public water systems to comply with
a growing number of complex drinking water rules. Congress authorized a drinking water
state revolving fund (DWSRF) program in 1996 to help communities finance projects needed
to comply with SDWA rules. Since FY1997, Congress has provided roughly $5.2 billion for
the program, including $850 million for FY2002. However, a large funding gap remains and
is expected to grow as new rules increase needs and infrastructure ages. (See CRS Report 97-
677, Safe Drinking Water Act: State Revolving Fund Program.) On July 29, 2002, the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 1961 (S. Rept. 107-228), a drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure financing bill which increases funding authority for the
DWSRF and authorizes $5 billion over 5 years for a small drinking water system grant
program. (See CRS Report RL31344, Water Infrastructure Financing Legislation:
Comparison of S. 1961 and H.R. 3930.)
Congress also has acted on drinking water security legislation. The emergency
supplemental appropriations for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117) contains $90.3 million for activities
including assessing the vulnerabilities of drinking water utilities, and $5 million for state
grants for assessing drinking water safety. On June 12, 2002, the President signed the
Bioterrorism Preparedness Act (P.L. 107-188, H.R. 3448) which authorizes $160 million for
CRS-8

---

IB10067
09-12-02
drinking water utilities to conduct vulnerability assessments, prepare emergency response
plans, and make basic security enhancements. Additionally, the law authorizes funding for
water infrastructure security research and for emergency assistance to states and public water
systems. (See CRS Report RL31294, Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking Water: EPA and
Congressional Actions.)
Legislation also has targeted specific contaminants. At least 13 bills address the problem
of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) being detected in drinking water
supplies. (See CRS Report 98-290 ENR, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water
Issues.) House and Senate versions of the energy bill, H.R. 4, authorize the appropriation
of $200 million from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to respond
to MTBE contamination. S. 950 (S. Rept. 107-131) contains similar funding authority and,
like the Senate energy bill, bans MTBE. (See also CRS Report RS21201, Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status and Issues.) Numerous bills were introduced
regarding the regulation of arsenic in drinking water, after EPA delayed a rule issued in
January 2001 to reduce the arsenic standard from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. After
reviewing the research and analyses for the arsenic rule, EPA announced that the standard
will be 10 ppb. Many in Congress had objected to the delay, and the conference report for
EPA’s FY2002 appropriations (P.L. 107-73, H. Rept. 107- 272) prohibited EPA from using
funds to delay the rule. The rule entered into effect on February 22, 2002, with a compliance
deadline of 2006 for public water systems. Several bills (e.g., H.R. 1252 and H.R. 1413)
authorize new funding to assist small systems in complying with the arsenic standard
specifically; in addition, S. 1961 and other bills (e.g., H.R. 1178/S. 503, H.R. 3224, and S.
1299) authorize grant programs to help small communities comply with all SDWA
standards. S. 1593, a water security research bill, includes $40 million to assist small
communities in complying with arsenic requirements.(See CRS Report RS20672, Arsenic
in Drinking Water: Recent Regulatory Developments and Issues.)
Superfund and Brownfields
(by Mark Reisch)
The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act passed both
chambers on December 20, 2001, and was signed into law on January 11, 2002 (P.L. 107-
118, H.R. 2869). It amends the Superfund Act, formally known as the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which is the
principal federal law for cleaning up spills and other discharges of hazardous substances.
The brownfields program for cleaning up less serious hazardous waste sites was initiated
administratively by EPA under the aegis of the Superfund program, and the current
enactment establishes the statutory authority for the brownfields program as well as
providing it with funding separate from the Superfund program.
The Small Business Liability Relief Act, Title I of H.R. 2869, exempts from CERCLA
liability for cleanup costs those persons who disposed of “de micromis” quantities of material
containing hazardous substances (less than 110 gallons of liquid or less than 200 pounds of
solid material) at sites on the National Priorities List prior to April 1, 2001. It also exempts
from liability residential property owners, small businesses, and small non-profit
organizations who sent municipal solid waste to a site that was later listed on the NPL. A
CRS-9

---

IB10067
09-12-02
party who sues someone who is exempted from liability due to these provisions must pay the
exempted party’s attorney’s fees and court costs. The act also authorizes EPA to reduce the
amount of a settlement for a small business or other person who demonstrates an inability
or limited ability to pay for cleanup.
Title II of the act would authorize $200 million per year for 5 years for grants to local
governments, states, and Indian tribes to inventory, assess, and clean up brownfield sites.
The lesser of $50 million or one-fourth of the annual appropriation would be dedicated to
cleaning up “relatively low-risk” brownfield sites contaminated by petroleum, which is not
presently allowed by CERCLA. The grants would be awarded competitively based on
ranking criteria in the act. An additional $50 million per year would be provided to establish
and enhance state and tribal cleanup programs. EPA would be prohibited from enforcement
activities at sites in a state cleanup program except in certain circumstances, such as an
imminent and substantial danger to public health or the environment. Title II also provides
liability protection from CERCLA for property contaminated by a contiguous site, for
prospective purchasers, and for innocent landowners. It requires states to maintain a public
record of brownfield sites; and directs the President to defer listing an eligible site on
Superfund’s National Priorities List (NPL) if a state so requests, so long as the state is
making progress in addressing it.
On November 26, 2001, the President signed the VA-HUD appropriations bill for
FY2002 (P.L. 107-73, H.R. 2620, H.Rept. 107-159, S.Rept. 107-43). It contains $1.27
billion for the Superfund program, including $97 million for brownfields.
The House passed H.R. 2941 on June 4, 2002. The bill enhances municipalities’
(especially smaller ones) ability to take advantage of the Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development’s brownfields program. The Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee reported S. 1079 on April 25, 2002, to provide $60 million per year for the
Economic Development Administration’s brownfield program.
(For further discussion, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10078, Superfund and Brownfields in the 107th Congress.)
Solid Waste Issues
(by James McCarthy)
The principal legislation affecting solid waste in the 107th Congress is found in the
comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 4), which the Senate passed on April 25, 2002, and the
House passed August 2, 2001. No other solid waste legislation has been addressed in the
107th Congress, and the prospects for other legislation addressing solid waste issues appear
dim.
In the House version of H.R. 4, Section 3306 contains tax credits for the production of
energy from landfill gas. The provision reinstates tax credits under Section 29 of the Internal
Revenue Code that had expired in 1998. The credits would be equal to more than $1.00 per
thousand cubic feet of gas produced, and would be allowed for facilities placed in service
between July 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006. They would apply to all gas produced at such
facilities for a 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment or the onset of production
CRS-10

---

IB10067
09-12-02
(whichever is later). Facilities required to collect gas under Clean Air Act regulations would
qualify for smaller credits.
The Senate version also reinstates Section 29 credits for production of energy from
landfill gas, but for a more restricted period of time. The credits would apply for a 3-year
period, and would apply to facilities placed in service after the date of enactment and before
January 1, 2005. The Senate bill also includes provisions to encourage the production of
ethanol from municipal solid waste; the House bill has no comparable provision.
Interstate shipment of solid waste, caused in part by the closure of old landfills,
continues to be of some interest to the Congress. In March 2001, New York City closed
Fresh Kills landfill, the last remaining landfill within city limits. [The landfill was
temporarily re-opened to handle debris from the World Trade Center, but it is no longer
handling any municipal garbage.] Fresh Kills was once the largest landfill in the United
States, accepting 13,000 tons of waste per day in 1996, when the decision to close it was
made. The city has few in-state disposal options, and, as a result of the landfill’s closure, is
now sending virtually all of its garbage out of state.
It has long been argued that the closure of Fresh Kills, in addition to mounting exports
of waste from other large cities, might provide the stimulus for Congress to address solid
waste legislation; but the event came and went without congressional action. Several bills
addressing interstate shipment of waste have been introduced.
The Senate has passed S. 351, a bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to limit the
use of mercury fever thermometers and improve the management of mercury.
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs
(by David Bearden)
While the Environmental Protection Agency is the primary federal agency responsible
for the control of pollution and the cleanup of civilian environmental contamination, the
Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for remediating contamination and controlling
pollution at military facilities. DOD administers five environmental programs, including
cleanup, compliance, pollution prevention, environmental technology, and conservation. In
addition to DOD’s programs, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing
defense nuclear waste and cleaning up contaminated nuclear weapons sites. Some of the
principal issues associated with these programs are the adequacy, cost, and pace of cleanup,
whether DOD and DOE adequately comply with environmental laws and regulations, and
the extent to which environmental requirements encroach upon military readiness.
The first session of the 107th Congress completed legislation to authorize and
appropriate funding in FY2002 for national defense programs: the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107), Department of Defense Appropriations Act
for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117), Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-
64), and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-66).
These laws provided a total of $10.8 billion for DOD’s and DOE’s defense-related
environmental programs, and the Administration has requested $10.9 billion for FY2003.
CRS-11

---

IB10067
09-12-02
In the second session of the 107th Congress, the House and Senate have passed
legislation to authorize national defense programs for FY2003,and a conference on the two
bills is underway. As passed, H.R. 4546 would authorize $1.28 billion for environmental
cleanup at current and former military installations, whereas S. 2514 would authorize $1.32
billion for these activities. Funding for DOD’s other environmental activities would
primarily be authorized under the Operation and Maintenance Accounts. For DOE’s
management of defense nuclear waste and cleanup of contaminated nuclear weapons sites,
H.R. 4546 would authorize $6.59 billion, while S. 2514 would authorize $6.87 billion. H.R.
4546 also would exempt military readiness activities from certain requirements under the
Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Wilderness Act. As passed,
S. 2514 does not include such exemptions.
Action also has begun on legislation to appropriate funding in FY2003 for national
defense programs. As passed by the House, H.R. 5010 would provide $1.28 billion for
environmental cleanup at current and former military installations, $40 million less than the
funding level of $1.32 billion that the Senate approved in passing its version of the bill. As
passed by the House, H.R. 5011 would provide $545 million for base closure activities,
which would include the cleanup of environmental contamination. The Senate approved
$645 million for these activities in passing its version of the bill. As reported, S. 2784
(S.Rept. 107-220) would provide $6.69 billion for DOE’s management of defense nuclear
waste and cleanup of contaminated nuclear weapons sites. The House has completed
subcommittee markup of this legislation, but the bill number or text will not be available
until it is reported out of full committee. P.L. 107-206 (H.R. 4775) would have provided
supplemental funding of $70 million in FY2002 to improve security at DOE defense nuclear
waste cleanup sites if the President made a specific emergency budget request. CRS Report
RL31456, Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and
Appropriations for FY2003, discusses other related legislation.)
Global Climate Change (by Susan Fletcher)
The key piece of climate change legislation in the 107th Congress is the Senate version
of H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill. This version would establish an Office of National
Climate Change Policy to develop a climate change response strategy. Further, the Senate
version of H.R. 4 would establish a voluntary greenhouse gas database and promote research
and development on climate change. The conference committee is currently working to
reconcile the House version of the bill, which only contains authorizations for research and
development, with the Senate version.
The 107th Congress has also included climate change provisions in the Foreign Relations
authorization bill, in some versions of appropriation bills, and in a number of other bills.
Concerns that the increases in “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have caused warming
of the Earth’s climate have led to a number of international responses, as well as issues of
interest to the U.S. Congress. One of the main issues for Congress over the past several years
has been oversight of the U.S. negotiations related to the Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which involve potential
rules for how climate change might be addressed by the United States and other nations, and
what policies are appropriate domestically to address climate change concerns. However,
since the Bush Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol, the issues for Congress have been
CRS-12

---

IB10067
09-12-02
evolving as the Administration’s positions have developed. On February 14th, 2002, the
Administration announced a series of voluntary measures intended to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, plus some increased climate related funding. The cornerstone of this “new
approach” is the reduction of greenhouse gas intensity – that is, greenhouse gas emissions
per unit of production.
A number of proposals, including coordination mechanisms in the federal government
for climate change, and a number of energy-related bills that include an emphasis on sources
of energy that produce fewer emissions, are under active consideration and have been
considered or reported by several committees. (For further discussion , see CRS Issue Brief
IB89005, Global Climate Change; CRS Report RL30692, Global Climate Change: The
Kyoto Protocol; CRS Report RL31205, Climate Change and Relevant Legislation in the
107th Congress; and the “Congressional Bills” section of the CRS electronic briefing book
on Global Climate Change, at [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.html].)
Regulating Pesticides (by Linda Schierow)
The President signed the Farm Bill May 13, 2002 (P.L. 107-171). The Senate-passed
Farm Bill (S. 1731) contained a manager’s amendment that would have required States to
develop integrated pest management plans for schools as part of state cooperative
enforcement agreements with EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). The provision was not contained in the House bill, and it was dropped in
conference.
Also dropped during the farm bill conference was a provision regarding fees for
pesticide registration. Instead, the report on FY2002 appropriations legislation for VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies, prohibits EPA from implementing a proposed rule to
increase fees for establishing a “tolerance,” or maximum safe level of pesticide residues on
foods (H.Rept. 107-159, H.Rept. 107- 272; P.L. 107-73). In lieu of increased tolerance fees,
the report extends for one year existing EPA authority to collect maintenance fees (for
reregistration of pesticides) and increases that authority from $14 to $17 million. For more
on this issue, see CRS Report RL31186, Pesticide Registration Fees.
The House Armed Services Committee reported, and all other committees of referral
discharged, H.R. 2581 on March 8, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-297, Part II). The House International
Relations Committee reported H.R. 2581, November 16, 2001, after including an amendment
authorizing the Commerce Department, in conjunction with EPA, to prohibit the export of
pesticides and chemicals that they deem to be a risk to the public health, safety, or
environment of the United States or any other country” (H.Rept. 107-297, Part I). The
Department, EPA, and other appropriate agencies would have to prepare a report identifying
all U.S. persons who export and the quantities exported of any hazardous pesticide or
chemical that is “banned, severely restricted, highly regulated, or never regulated for use” in
the United States. The bill would reauthorize the Export Administration Act through 2005.
The Senate-passed version of the bill (S. 149) does not contain pesticide export provisions.
EPA currently has no authority to regulate pesticide exports. Authority may be granted to
prohibit exports of a limited number of chemicals, if Congress approves international treaties
and implementing legislation (H.R. 4935 and S. 2118 or S. 2507). The two treaties, known
as the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions, respectively, would phase out production and
CRS-13

---

IB10067
09-12-02
trade of 12 persistent organic pollutants and require informed consent from importing
governments, when certain banned and severely restricted chemicals are exported. For more
on this issue see CRS Report RS20959, Persistent Organic Pollutants: Factsheet on the
Stockholm Convention.
The 107th Congress also may consider proposals (H.R. 2721, H.R. 2727, S. 877, and S.
1963) that would require labeling or restrict the use of arsenic-treated lumber, particularly
in construction of playground equipment. Other proposals (H.R. 1084 and S. 532) would
allow a state to register a Canadian pesticide for distribution and use within that state. The
intent is to give growers living in states that border Canadian provinces equal access to
pesticides used by their Canadian competitors. In addition, the 107th Congress is likely to
continue overseeing EPA implementation of the FQPA, which amended FIFRA and the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) in 1996. FQPA established a new, stricter
safety standard for pesticide residue tolerances and directed EPA to re-evaluate all tolerances
in effect in 1996 by August 3, 2006. At issue is the pace and process through which EPA is
implementing the law. For additional discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RS20043,
Pesticide Residue Regulation: Analysis of Food Quality Protection Act Implementation.
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency
(by Martin R. Lee)
For FY2002, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). P.L. 107-73, signed on November 26, 2001,
provided $7.90 billion. P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Division B) , the FY2002 Emergency
Supplemental Act, provides supplemental funding of $176 million for EPA activities
relating to security threats. P.L. 107-206 (H.R. 4775) would have provided $50 million for
drinking water vulnerability assessments if the President requests these as emergency funds.
For FY2003, the President requests $7.7 billion in budget authority for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $458.8 million (or 5.6%) less than the total
FY2002 appropriation of $8.2 billion which included the $175 million terrorism
supplemental in P.L. 107-117, Div. B. The Administration will not continue funding for
about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2002, and proposes provisions shifting
more enforcement responsibilities to the states. On July 25, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations approved in S. 2797 (S.Rept. 107-222) $8.3 billion for EPA, restoring much
of the water grant funding. (See CRS Issue Brief IB10101, The Environmental Protection
Agency’s FY2003 Budget, for further discussion.)
Environmental Research and Development
(by Michael Simpson)
The 107th Congress, 1st Session considered bills that authorize the EPA Office of Air
and Radiation and EPA’s climate change programs, fund EPA programs, and consider
specific ways to improve the quality of science acquired, reviewed, used by, and
disseminated from EPA. The Congress may advance those actions and considerations.
CRS-14

---

IB10067
09-12-02
S. 1176 (Environmental Research Enhancement Act of 2001) and House-passed H.R.64
would establish a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology (S&T) and an Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development. Both propose new duties for some EPA
offices to try to improve the quality of science acquired, reviewed, used by, and disseminated
from the Agency.
The Administration requested $641 million for EPA’s S&T account for FY2002. The
House-passed version of H.R.2620 included $680 million; the Senate-passed version, $666
million. Signed on November 26, PL107-73 provided $698million for S&T, and transferred
$37 million from the Superfund account. The Administration requested $670 million for
EPA Science and Technology for FY2003. In Senate Report 107-222 accompanying S.
2797, the Appropriations Committee recommended $710 million for S&T, $78 million
below the enacted level including supplemental funding, and the Committee recommended
transferring $86 million from the Superfund account, for a total of $796 million for S&T.
The Senate Appropriations Committee denied a proposal to cease funding Science to
Achieve Results grants and recommended $9.75 million.
Two bills would authorize appropriations for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, and
EPA’s Climate Change Protection Programs. H.R. 2460, as reported, Subtitle G authorizes
appropriations for FY2002 at $157 million, FY2003 at $163 million, and FY2004 at $169
million. Of these amounts, the following would be for science: $28 million for FY2002, $29
million for FY2003, and $31 million for FY2004. For climate change programs, $128
million would be allocated for FY2002, $134 million for FY2003, and $139 million for
FY2004. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 Subtitle G would authorize $122 million for
FY2002, $127 million for FY2003, and $132 million for FY2004 for Climate Protection
Programs (information about these programs can be found in CRS Issue Brief IB10020,
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues).
Conferences were held on June 27 and July 25, 2002.
CRS-15

---