Order Code IB10067
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 107th Congress
Updated October 7, 2002
Coordinated by Martin R. Lee and Margaret M. Isler
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 and Brent Yacobucci)
Regulating Pesticides (by Linda Schierow)
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency (by Martin R. Lee)
Environmental Research and Development (by Michael Simpson)

---

IB10067
10-07-02
Environmental Protection Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
Among the many environmental bills
use of MTBE in gasoline. The Senate version
introduced in the 107th Congress as of early
would also require the use of renewable fuels
October, a brownfields bill and bioterrorism
in electricity generation and motor fuels. The
preparedness legislation were the only major
House version of H.R. 4 would reauthorize
enactments. In addition, the first session pro-
EPA's climate change programs, while the
vided FY2002 funding to the Environmental
Senate version would establish a new Office
Protection Agency (EPA) and other govern-
of National Climate Change Policy and would
ment agency environmental programs.
create a national greenhouse gas database.
Still on the agenda are: H.R. 4, the com-
Security Issues. S. 1602, as reported,
prehensive energy bill, which has numerous
and its companion, H.R. 5300, would require
environmental provisions; the EPA and De-
EPA to identify and regulate sources of poten-
partment of Defense appropriations bills for
tially disastrous, accidental or criminal, chem-
FY2003; bills authorizing HUD and the Econ-
ical releases. Action also has occurred on
omic Development Administration (EDA)
several water infrastructure security bills. The
brownfield programs; legislation authorizing
Bioterrorism Preparedness Act (P.L. 107-188)
EPA regulation of pesticide exports; bills to
authorized funding for drinking water vulnera-
extend water infrastructure funding programs;
bility assessments and security upgrades.
and legislation to address chemical plant
security. Table 1 provides a summary of
Appropriations. In the first session,
environmental legislation on which there has
Congress appropriated $7.9 billion for EPA,
been some action.
for FY2002, plus another $176 million in

supplemental funding for anti-terrorism activi-
Brownfields. In the first session,
ties. On July 25, 2002, the Senate Appropria-
Congress enacted P.L. 107-118, the Small
tions Committee approved $8.3 billion for
Business Liability Relief and Brownfield
EPA for FY2003 in reporting S. 2797 (S.Rept.
Revitalization Act. On June 4, 2002, the
107-222). The Administration has requested
House passed H.R. 2941 to enhance the De-
$7.6 billion. In addition to funding for EPA,
p artment of Housing and Urban
consideration of authorization and appropria-
Development’s brownfields program. The
tions bills for defense-related environmental
Senate Environment and Public Works Com-
activities is also underway. A continuing
mittee reported S. 1079 (S.Rept. 107-244) on
resolution provides funding at the same level
August 28, 2002, to provide $60 million per
as enacted for FY2002, until a final appropria-
year for the EDA’s brownfield program.
tions bill is enacted for FY2003.
Energy Bill. House and Senate confer-
Other Issues. Congress has held hear-
ees are currently negotiating a compromise on
ings and considered legislation on many other
a comprehensive energy package, H.R. 4, that
environmental issues in addition to the above.
includes a number of environmental provi-
This issue brief reviews congressional activity
sions. Both versions address drinking water
in 12 environmental issue areas and refers the
contamination from MTBE, a gasoline addi-
reader to more detailed information in addi-
tive, and the Senate version would ban future
tional CRS reports.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10067
10-07-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
House and Senate conferees continue to meet on their versions of the comprehensive
energy legislation, H.R. 4. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 would ban the gasoline
additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), allow waiving the Clean Air Act’s gasoline
oxygen content requirements, require the use of renewable fuels in electricity generation and
motor fuels, establish the Office of National Climate Change Policy, and create a national
greenhouse gas database; the House version would reauthorize EPA’s climate change
programs; both House and Senate versions would authorize funds to address MTBE
contamination of drinking water.
On July 25, 2002, the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved $8.3 billion for
EPA for FY2003, in reporting S. 2797 (S.Rept 107-222). A continuing resolution provides
funding at the same level as enacted for FY2002, until a final appropriations bill is enacted
for FY2003. House and Senate conferees are also meeting on legislation (H.R. 4546 and S.
2514) to authorize funding for national defense programs in FY2003, including funding for
activities to address the environmental impacts of military activities. The House and Senate
also have passed appropriations bills for these activities in FY2003, including defense (H.R.
5010) and military construction (H.R. 5011), and the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees have approved funding for the cleanup of defense nuclear waste in reporting the
appropriations bill for energy and water development (H.R. 5431 and S. 2784).
Congress has acted on a variety of other environmental bills during the second session.
On September 5, 2002, the Senate passed S. 351, limiting the use of mercury thermometers
and encouraging proper management of mercury. The House passed H.R. 1070 on toxic
sediment contamination on September 4, and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee approved its version of H.R. 1070, as amended, on September 26. The Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 1079 (S.Rept. 107-244) on August 28,
to provide $60 million per year for the Economic Development Administration’s brownfield
program. On June 4, the House passed H.R. 2941, a bill to enhance municipalities’ ability
to take advantage of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s brownfields
program. The Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (P.L. 107-188, H.R. 3448),
enacted on June 12, authorizes funding for vulnerability assessments and security upgrades
by drinking water utilities.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
This issue brief provides an overview of environmental protection legislation and issues
considered by the 107th Congress. (For a description of environmental protection laws, see
CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency.)
The authorizations for most environmental protection programs have expired, although
program authorities remain in effect and legislative action to provide funding has continued.
Table 1 shows the action taken on legislation in the 107th Congress.
CRS-1

---

IB10067
10-07-02
Table 1. Action on Environmental Protection Legislation
in the 107th Congress
Brownfields
P.L. 107- 118
Signed 01/11/02
Provides certain relief for small businesses
(H.R. 2869-
under Superfund, promotes the cleanup
combined
and reuse of brownfields, provides
provisions of House
financial assistance for brownfields
-passed H.R. 1831
revitalization
and Senate-passed
S.350)
H.R. 2941
Passed House 06/4/02
HUD Brownfield Program
S. 1079
Reported by Senate Environment
Economic Development Administration
and Public Works 08/28/02
Brownfield Assistance
(S.Rept. 107-244)
Pesticides
P.L. 107-73
Signed 11/26/01
The FY2002 EPA Appropriations include
(H.R. 2620)
extending EPA authority to collect
pesticide reregistration fees for one year
H.R. 2581
Reported (amended) by House
Authorizes EPA to prohibit export of
Armed Services 03/08/02
certain pesticides and chemicals
(H.Rept. 107-297)
Air Quality
S. 556
Ordered reported by Senate
Requires power plants to reduce emissions
Environment and Public Works
of 4 pollutants (including CO2)
06/27/02
S. 950
Reported by Senate Environment
Bans the use of MTBE as a fuel additive
H.R. 4
and Public Works 12/20/01
H.R. 4 also triples the use of ethanol
(S.Rept. 107-131)
(§820)
H.R. 4, as passed by the Senate
04/25/02, includes S. 950
provisions as sections 831-839;
H.R. 4 passed the House 08/02/01.
Conferees continue to meet
Chemical Plant Security
S. 1602
Ordered reported by Senate
Requires EPA to identify high priority
Environment and Public Works
chemical risks and to issue regulations
07/25/02
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
Ordered reported by House
Extends Clean Water Act wastewater
Transportation and Infrastructure
infrastructure funding
04/17/02
S. 1961
Reported by Senate Environment
Extends wastewater and drinking water
and Public Works 07/29/02
infrastructure funding
(S.Rept. 107-228)
CRS-2

---

IB10067
10-07-02
H.R. 1070
Passed House 09/04/02
Contaminated sediment legislation
Ordered reported by Senate
Environment and Public Works
09/26/02 as an amendment in the
nature of a substitute text of
(S. 2544)
H.R. 5169
Reported by House Transportation
Authorizes funds for vulnerability
and Infrastructure 09/05/02
assessments of wastewater utilities
(H.Rept. 107-645)
Drinking Water
P.L. 107-188
Signed 06/12/02
Authorizes $120 million for vulnerability
(H.R. 3448)
assessments and emergency response plans
to protect drinking water systems
(incorporates parts of H.R. 3178, S. 1593
and S. 1608)
H.R. 4, §504
Passed House 08/02/01
Both bills authorize $200 million to clean
H.R. 4, §832
Passed Senate 04/25/02
up MTBE at underground tanks. The
Senate bill authorizes additional funds for
enforcing tank regulations and for research
S. 1850
Ordered reported by Senate
Authorizes increased appropriations from
Environment and Public Works
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
07/25/02
(LUST) Trust Fund for cleaning up
gasoline and MTBE leaks. Imposes new
requirements on states and tank owners
Solid Waste
H.R. 4, §3306
Passed House 08/02/01
Tax credits for the production of energy
H.R. 4 §2310
Passed Senate 04/25/02
from landfill gas; Senate version
encourages the production of ethanol from
municipal solid waste
S. 351
Passed Senate 09/05/02
Authorizes programs to limit use of
mercury thermometers
Climate Change
H.R. 4
Passed House 08/02/01
Both versions authorize EPA climate
Passed Senate 04/25/02
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
P.L. 107-228
Signed 09/30/02
Prohibits U.S. contributions to the United
(H.R. 1646)
Nations Budget from being used to
implement the Framework Convention on
Global Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol)
EPA Funding
P.L. 107-73
Signed 11/26/01
Appropriated $7.9 billion in FY2002 for
(H.R. 2620)
EPA programs
P.L. 107-117
Signed 01/10/02
Appropriated $176 million in
(H.R. 3338, Div B)
supplemental FY2002 funding for EPA
terrorist-related activities
CRS-3

---

IB10067
10-07-02
P.L. 107-206
Signed 08/02/02
Appropriates $50 million to EPA in
(H.R. 4775)
supplemental funding for FY2002 for
drinking water vulnerability assessments if
the President requests emergency funds
S. 2797
Reported by Senate
Appropriates $8.3 billion for EPA for
Appropriations 07/25/02
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
Signed 01/10/02
Defense Appropriations for FY2002 and
(H.R3338)
Emergency Supplemental, includes
environmental activities
P.L. 107-64
Signed 11/05/01
Military Construction Appropriations for
(H.R. 2904)
FY2002, contains funding for cleaning up
base closure sites
P.L. 107-66
Signed 11/12/01
Energy and Water Development
(H.R. 2311)
Appropriations for FY2002, contains
funding for defense-related nuclear waste
management
P.L. 107-107
Signed 12/28/01
Defense Authorization Act for FY2002,
(S.1438)
includes environmental activities
H.R. 4546
In conference.
Defense Authorization Act for FY2003,
S. 2514
includes environmental activities
H.R. 5010
Passed House 06/27/02
Defense Appropriations for FY2003,
Passed Senate 08/01/02
includes environmental activities
H.R. 5011
Passed House 06/27/02
Military Construction Appropriations for
Passed Senate 07/18/02
FY2003, contains funding for cleaning up
base closure sites
S. 2784
Reported by Senate
Energy and Water Development
Appropriations 07/24/02
Appropriations for FY2003, contains
(S.Rept. 107-220)
funding for defense related nuclear waste
management
H.R. 5431
Reported by House Appropriations
09/24/02 (H.Rept. 107-681)
P.L 107-206
Signed 08/02/02
Provides supplemental funding of $70
(H.R. 4775)
million in FY2002 for security at DOE
defense nuclear waste cleanup sites, if the
President requests such funds
Environmental Streamlining Funding
P.L. 107-87
Signed 12/18/01
DOT Appropriations includes funds for
(H.R. 2299)
environmental streamlining initiatives
CRS-4

---

IB10067
10-07-02
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.
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
10-07-02
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. Other bills, on which no action has been taken, are 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 compromised, 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 primarily 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 disappointment over the pace at which implementation has proceeded. While the
Department of Transportation has taken numerous administrative actions in response to the
streamlining requirements of TEA21, regulations to put streamlining into practice have not
been finalized. The Clinton Administration had issued a streamlining regulatory proposal
in May 2000. However, the Bush Administration has withdrawn it, due to criticisms by
many stakeholders who argued that it would further complicate the review process and result
CRS-6

---

IB10067
10-07-02
in longer project delays. In the interim, President Bush has issued an executive order which
directs federal agencies to expedite environmental reviews for high-priority transportation
projects. In oversight hearings, some Members of Congress have expressed concerns over
the lack of streamlining regulations, and have argued that further legislative action is
necessary to address the issue of project delivery. As introduced, H.R. 5455 would provide
the Department of Transportation with greater authority over the environmental review
process in order to prevent project delays. (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 have faced 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. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved its version of H.R.
1070, as amended, on September 26. (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
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.
CRS-7

---

IB10067
10-07-02
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. (For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10069, Clean
Water Act Issues in the 107th Congress.)
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). The House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee has reported a bill authorizing grants for vulnerability
assessments by wastewater utilities (H.R. 5169, H.Rept. 107-645).
Safe Drinking Water Act (by Mary Tiemann)
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal statute for regulating the
quality of water provided by public water systems. Congress last reauthorized the Act in
1996, authorizing funding for SDWA programs through FY2003. Key issues in the 107th
Congress have included drinking water infrastructure needs and funding and, more
specifically, 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
10-07-02
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. (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
party who sues someone who is exempted from liability due to these provisions must pay the
CRS-9

---

IB10067
10-07-02
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.
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
(whichever is later). Facilities required to collect gas under Clean Air Act regulations would
qualify for smaller credits.
CRS-10

---

IB10067
10-07-02
Section 2310 of the Senate version of H.R. 4 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 to improve the management of mercury collected
from waste and from surplus stocks.
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 authorized and appropriated 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 $11.2 billion for FY2003.
CRS-11

---

IB10067
10-07-02
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 be
authorized primarily 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 is underway on appropriations bills to fund national defense programs in
FY2003. 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 in defense
authorization legislation, both bills would provide funding for DOD’s other environmental
activities primarily under the Operation and Maintenance Accounts. 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. As reported, H.R. 5431 (H.Rept. 107-681) would
provide $6.87 billion for these activities. 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 had made an emergency budget request for such funds.
A continuing resolution provides funding at the same level as enacted for FY2002, until final
appropriations are enacted for FY2003. (CRS Report RL31456, Defense Cleanup and
Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003, discusses each of
the above bills and other related legislation.)
Global Climate Change (by Susan Fletcher and Brent
Yacobucci)
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 reauthorizes EPA’s current climate-related
programs, with the Senate version.
The 107th Congress has also included climate change provisions in the House and
Senate State Department authorization bills (though these were dropped in conference), in
some versions of appropriation bills, and in a number of other bills. Concern that the
increases in “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere has caused warming of the Earth’s climate
has led to a number of international responses, as well as issues of interest to the U.S.
CRS-12

---

IB10067
10-07-02
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 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.
(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.
On March 8, 2002, the House Armed Services Committee reported, and all other
committees of referral discharged H.R. 2581, the Export Administration Act of 2001
(H.Rept. 107-297, Part II). The House International Relations Committee reported H.R.
2581, November 16, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-297, Part I). As reported on March 8, H.R. 2581,
Section 313, authorizes the President to "prohibit the exportation of pesticides and chemicals
that the President deems to be a risk to the public health, safety, or environment of the United
States or any other country" (H.Rept. 107-297, Parts I and II). The President would be
directed to prepare a report identifying all U.S. persons who export and the quantities
exported of any hazardous pesticide or chemical that is included in the Convention on the
Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade or the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, or "is either banned,
severely restricted, highly regulated, or never regulated for use in the United States." The bill
CRS-13

---

IB10067
10-07-02
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 the two international Conventions named
in H.R. 2581 and implementing legislation (H.R. 4935 and S. 2118 or S. 2507). The two
treaties would phase out production and 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 Food Quality Protection Act (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
EPA. P.L. 107-73 (H.R. 2620), signed on November 26, 2001, provided $7.9 billion. P.L.
107-117 (H.R. 3338, Division B), the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act, provided
supplemental funding of $176 million for EPA activities related to anti-terrorism. P.L. 107-
206 (H.R. 4775) would have provided $50 million in additional supplemental funding in
FY2002 for drinking water vulnerability assessments, but in August, the President announced
he would not spend contingent emergency funds in the bill, including EPA funds.
For FY2003, the President has requested $7.6 billion in discretionary budget authority
for EPA, nearly $460 million less than the FY2002 funding level of $8.1 billion, which
included the $176 million in supplemental funding for anti-terrorism activities. The requested
decrease is primarily due to the Administration’s proposal to discontinue funding for various
activities that received earmarked funding in FY2002, the majority of which consisted of
water infrastructure projects. As part of its FY2003 budget request, the Administration also
has proposed to shift more enforcement responsibilities to the states. On July 25, 2002, the
Senate Appropriations Committee approved $8.3 billion for EPA for FY2003 in reporting
S. 2797 (S.Rept. 107-222), restoring much of last year’s earmarked funding for water
infrastructure projects. A continuing resolution provides funding at the same level as enacted
for FY2002, until a final appropriations bill is enacted for FY2003. (See CRS Issue Brief
IB10101, The Environmental Protection Agency’s FY2003 Budget, for further discussion.)
CRS-14

---

IB10067
10-07-02
Environmental Research and Development
(by Michael Simpson)
In the first session of the 107th Congress, bills were considered 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.
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

---