Order Code IB10067
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 107th Congress
Updated December 9, 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
12-9-02
Environmental Protection Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress enacted brownfields,
banned future use of MTBE in gasoline. The
bioterrorism, and a sediment contamination
Senate version would have also required the
statutes. In addition, it provided FY2002
use of renewable fuels in electricity generation
funding to the Environmental Protection
and motor fuels. The House version of H.R. 4
Agency (EPA) and other government agency
would have reauthorized EPA's climate
environmental programs, and continued
change programs, while the Senate version
FY2002 funding through January 11, 2003.
would have established a new Office of
National Climate Change Policy and would
Many other bills received committee or
have created a national greenhouse gas
floor action. H.R. 4, the comprehensive
database.
energy bill, which has numerous
environmental provisions; the EPA and
Security Issues. S. 1602, as reported,
Department of Defense appropriations bills
and its companion, H.R. 5300, would have
for FY2003; bills authorizing HUD and the
required EPA to identify and regulate sources
Economic Development Administration
of potentially disastrous, accidental or crim-
(EDA) brownfield programs; legislation
inal, chemical releases. Action also occurred
authorizing EPA regulation of pesticide ex-
on several water infrastructure security bills.
ports; bills to extend water infrastructure fund-
The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act (P.L. 107-
ing programs; and legislation to address
188) authorized funding for drinking water
chemical plant security. Table 1 provides a
vulnerability assessments and security
summary of environmental legislation on
upgrades.
which there has been some action.

Appropriations. In the first session,
Superfund/Brownfields. In the first
Congress appropriated $7.9 billion for EPA,
session, Congress enacted P.L. 107-118, the
for FY2002, plus another $176 million in
Small Business Liability Relief and
supplemental funding for anti-terrorism
Brownfield Revitalization Act. On June 4,
activities. On July 25, 2002, the Senate
2002, the House passed H.R. 2941 to enhance
Appropriations Committee approved $8.3
the Department of Housing and Urban
billion for EPA for FY2003 in reporting S.
Development’s brownfields program. The
2797 (S.Rept. 107-222). The Administration
Senate Environment and Public Works Com-
has requested $7.6 billion. In addition to
mittee reported S. 1079 (S.Rept. 107-244) on
funding for EPA, consideration of
August 28, 2002, to provide $60 million per
authorization and appropriations bills for
year for the EDA’s brownfield program.
defense-related environmental activities is
also underway. A continuing resolution
Energy Bill. House and Senate
provides funding at the same level as enacted
conferees did not complete action on a
for FY2002, until a final appropriations bill is
comprehensive energy package, H.R. 4, that
enacted for FY2003.
includes a number of environmental
provisions. Both versions address drinking
water contamination from MTBE, a gasoline
additive, and the Senate version would have
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10067
12-9-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
House and Senate conferees did not complete action on their versions of the
comprehensive energy legislation, H.R. 4. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 would have
banned the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), allow waiving the Clean
Air Act’s gasoline oxygen content requirements, required 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 have
reauthorized EPA’s climate change programs; both House and Senate versions would have
authorized 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. Congress completed actions authorizing and funding most of DOD’s
environmental programs.
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. Congress enacted H.R. 1070 on toxic
sediment contamination. 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
12-9-02
Table 1. Action on Environmental Protection Legislation
in the 107th Congress
Superfund and 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. 1/S. 1
Passed Senate 06/14/01
Requires state pesticide management plans
(dropped in conference)
for schools
S. 1731
Passed Senate 02/13/02
Includes provisions on school pesticide
(dropped in conference)
management plans and fees
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 four 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
P.L. 107-303
Signed 11/27/02
authorizes assistance for remediation of
(H.R. 1070)
sediment contamination
H.R. 3930
Ordered reported by House
Extends Clean Water Act wastewater
Transportation and Infrastructure
infrastructure funding
04/17/02
CRS-2

---

IB10067
12-9-02
S. 1961
Reported by Senate Environment
Extends wastewater and drinking water
and Public Works 07/29/02
infrastructure funding
(S.Rept. 107-228)
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 House-passed H.R.
3178, Senate-reported S. 1593 and Senate-
passed 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
H.R. 1646
Passed House 05/16/01
Encourage U.S. leadership to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and continue
participating in climate change
negotiations
H.R. 2460
Reported from House Science
Authorizes EPA Climate Change Programs
(H.Rept. 107-177) 07/31/01
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)
CRS-3

---

IB10067
12-9-02
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
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 (S.Rept. 107-222)
FY2003
07/25/02
H.R. 5605
Reported by House Appropriations
Appropriates $8.3 billion for EPA for
(H.Rept. 107-740)
FY2003
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
P.L. 107-314 ( H.R.
Cleared 11/13/02
Defense Authorization Act for FY2003,
4546)
includes environmental activities
P.L. 107-248 (H.R.
Signed 10/23/02
Defense Appropriations for FY2003,
5010)
includes environmental activities
P.L. 107-249 (H.R.
Signed 10/23/02
Military Construction Appropriations for
5011)
FY2003, funding for closed bases cleanup
S. 2784
Reported by Senate
FY2003 Energy and Water Appropriations
Appropriations 07/24/02
contains funding for defense related
(S.Rept. 107-220)
nuclear waste management
H.R. 5431
Reported by House Appropriations
FY2003 Energy and Water Appropriations
09/24/02 (H.Rept. 107-681)
contains funding for defense related
nuclear waste management
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
12-9-02
Clean Air Act (by James McCarthy)
Clean air issues were discussed at length in the 107th Congress, but little action was
taken, leaving the same issues for consideration in the 108th Congress. The most prominent
air quality issue was whether to modify state and federal regulations designed to protect air
quality in order to promote energy production. Of particular interest were 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 passed comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 4) in the 107th
Congress, but neither version of the bill contained provisions addressing these issues; the
bill died in conference. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee narrowly
approved multi-pollutant legislation (S. 556) June 27, 2002, but the Administration and
much of the electric power industry opposed the bill, and it did not reach the Senate floor.
The bill would have required power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide.
A second set of air issues Congress considered 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 would have banned the use of MTBE in gasoline within 4 years, eliminated the 2%
oxygen requirement, preserved the emission reductions achieved by reformulated gasoline,
and required a tripling of the use of ethanol or other renewable fuels in motor vehicles by
2012. The House did not have comparable requirements in its version of H.R. 4—one of
many areas in which the House and Senate-passed bills differed. On August 1, 2001, the
House rejected an attempt to exempt California from the oxygen requirement (the Cox
amendment to H.R. 4). H.R. 4 died in conference, leaving MTBE and other issues to be
considered by the 108th Congress. (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 considered, but did not enact 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
CRS-5

---

IB10067
12-9-02
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,
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 have authorized the Secretary of Commerce to
issue licenses to qualified persons and to restrict the sale, purchase, and distribution of
certain chemicals to licensees. S. 2579 would have amended the Clean Air Act to eliminate
the names and locations of facilities from publicly available facility risk management plans,
and made public disclosure of such information by government officials a crime. The bill
also would have expanded official access to the plans.
The bill that established the new Department of Homeland Security, H.R.5005, does not
address chemical plant security directly. However, if facilities are part of the “critical
infrastructure” (as are water utilities, for example), the new law will exempt from FOIA
requirements information about the plants’ vulnerability to terrorism if it is submitted
voluntarily to the Department. The Department of Homeland Security is required to analyze
vulnerabilities and recommend methods of enhancing site security.
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. Of this amount, over $12 billion was reserved for several
programs to mitigate the environmental impacts of surface transportation. Most of this
funding was 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 the environmental review
process for highway projects to be streamlined. (CRS Report 98-646 ENR, Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178): An Overview of Environmental Protection
Provisions, provides additional information.)
During the 107th Congress, several oversight hearings were held to examine the
Department of Transportation’s implementation of TEA21. Oversight of the law’s
environmental provisions 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 expressed disappointment
that the Department of Transportation’s actions have mostly been administrative in nature,
and that 4 years after the enactment of the law, streamlining regulations have yet to be
finalized. The lack of final regulations has increased interest in legislative action to speed
project delivery and meet public demands for transportation infrastructure. Two bills were
introduced toward the end of the 107th Congress to address the streamlining issue: H.R. 5455
and S. 3031. Although there were differences between the two bills, both included proposals
to grant the Secretary of Transportation greater authority over the environmental review
CRS-6

---

IB10067
12-9-02
process, establish statutory deadlines for various aspects of the review process, and allow
qualified states to assume certain federal responsibilities. (CRS Report RS20841,
Environmental Streamlining Provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century: Status of Implementation, provides additional information on this issue.)
Debate over the reauthorization of TEA21 is expected to begin early in the 108th
Congress. Due to ongoing concerns over highway project delays, whether to take firmer
actions to streamline the environmental review process will likely be a prominent issue, and
proposals similar to the two bills mentioned above may be considered. The use of federal
highway funding for air quality projects under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) will be a likely topic of discussion as well. The findings
of a National Academy of Sciences study have raised questions regarding the program’s
impact on state efforts to comply with federal air quality standards. Consequently, proposals
to enhance the effectiveness of the CMAQ program, or to possibly shift its focus away from
air quality to reducing traffic congestion in general, may be considered. The adequacy of
funding to support other environmentally related transportation programs may also be
addressed.
Clean Water Act Issues (by Claudia Copeland)
The 107th Congress did not enact comprehensive legislation affecting the Clean
Water Act (CWA). However, in November, the House and Senate gave final approval to a
bill amending one portion of the Act, legislation entitled the Great Lakes Legacy Act (P.L.
107-303, H.R. 1070). It authorizes $200 million for the Environmental Protection Agency
to carry out projects to remediate sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. President Bush
is expected to sign H.R. 1070.
During the 107th Congress, committees focused attention on legislation to authorize
water infrastructure funding. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
approved a bill to extend the Clean Water Act’s program that assists municipal wastewater
treatment projects through FY2007 (H.R. 3930); the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee approved similar legislation (S. 1961, S.Rept. 107-228). (For information, see
CRS Report RL31344, Water Infrastructure Financing Legislation: Comparison of S. 1961
and H.R. 3930.) Neither bill received further action due to controversies about provisions
in both such as a new formula for state-by-state allocation of federal funds and application
of requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act to pay prevailing wages on federally funded
projects. Water infrastructure financing issues are likely to be a priority in the 108th
Congress.
More generally, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, congressional attention 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 considered a number of legislative options in this area, including enhanced
physical security, communication and coordination, and research. In December 2001,
Congress appropriated $176 million in funds to EPA for water infrastructure and other
CRS-7

---

IB10067
12-9-02
security activities (P.L. 107-117), and in May 2002, Congress passed legislation authorizing
funding for drinking water utility vulnerability assessments (P.L. 107-188). In October, the
House passed a bill authorizing grants for vulnerability assessments by wastewater utilities
(H.R. 5169, H.Rept. 107-645). Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate (S. 3037).
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. 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.
Throughout this period, Congress has considered possible actions to implement existing
provisions of the CWA, whether additional steps are necessary to achieve the overall goals
of the Act, and the appropriate federal role in guiding and paying for clean water activities.
(For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10069, Clean Water Act Issues in the 107th
Congress.)
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. (For a review of the Act,
see CRS Report RL31243, Safe Drinking Water Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major
Requirements.) Key issues in the 107th Congress included drinking water infrastructure needs
and funding, and the security of the Nation’s water supplies. Water infrastructure financing
may continue to be of interest in the 108th Congress.
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 would have increased funding
authority for the DWSRF and would have provided $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.)
The 107th Congress also 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 authorized $160 million for
drinking water utilities to conduct vulnerability assessments, prepare emergency response
CRS-8

---

IB10067
12-9-02
plans, and make basic security enhancements. Additionally, the Act authorized 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 targeted specific contaminants. At least 13 bills addressed 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, proposed to authorize the
appropriation of $200 million from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust
Fund to respond to MTBE contamination. (Also see 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)
proposed 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) would have authorized grant programs to help small communities comply with all
SDWA standards. S. 1593, a water security research bill, included $40 million to assist small
communities in complying with arsenic requirements. (For more information, 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
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.
CRS-9

---

IB10067
12-9-02
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 19, 2002, the Senate passed S. 606 (S.Rept. 107-320) to establish an
independent ombudsman in EPA to assist the public and conduct investigations concerning
the programs administered by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. These
include the solid and hazardous waste programs, Superfund and brownfield activities, leaking
underground storage tanks, and oil spills.
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.
Issues that the 108th Congress may consider are the dwindling balance of the Superfund
trust fund, oversight of the new brownfields law, and, if they are not enacted in the current
session, successor bills to those referred to above: S. 606, H.R. 2941, and S. 1079. (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 was in the
comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 4), which the Senate passed on April 25, 2002, and the
House passed August 2, 2001. The bill died in conference, leaving the solid waste issues and
other issues addressed by H.R. 4 for consideration by the 108th Congress.
In the House version of H.R. 4, Section 3306 contained tax credits for the production
of energy from landfill gas. The provision would have reinstated tax credits under Section
29 of the Internal Revenue Code that had expired in 1998. The credits would have been
equal to more than $1.00 per thousand cubic feet of gas produced, and would have been
allowed for facilities placed in service between July 1, 1998 and December 31, 2006. They
would have applied to all gas produced at such facilities for a 5-year period beginning on the
date of enactment or the onset of production (whichever was later). Facilities required to
collect gas under Clean Air Act regulations would have qualified for smaller credits.
CRS-10

---

IB10067
12-9-02
Section 2310 of the Senate version of H.R. 4 also would have reinstated Section 29
credits for production of energy from landfill gas, but for a more restricted period of time.
The credits would have applied for a 3-year period, and would have applied to facilities
placed in service after the date of enactment and before January 1, 2005. The Senate bill also
included provisions to encourage the production of ethanol from municipal solid waste; the
House bill had 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
were introduced but there was no action on any of them.
The Senate 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. The House did not take up the issue.
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs
(by David Bearden)
Although 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 nearly
$10.8 billion for DOD’s and DOE’s defense-related environmental programs, and the
Administration requested almost $11.2 billion for FY2003.
CRS-11

---

IB10067
12-9-02
The second session of the 107th Congress completed action on legislation to authorize
national defense programs for FY2003, including funding for DOD and DOE’s defense-
related environmental programs. As enacted, the conference agreement on P.L. 107-314
(H.R. 4546, H.Rept. 107-772) authorizes $1.32 billion for environmental cleanup at current
and former military installations, and it would authorize $565 million for base closure
activities, which would include the cleanup of environmental contamination. As in past
years, funding for environmental compliance, pollution prevention, environmental
technology, and conservation would be authorized primarily under the Operation and
Maintenance, Procurement, and Research and Development Accounts. A total of $6.76
billion would be authorized for DOE’s management of defense nuclear waste and cleanup
of contaminated nuclear weapons sites. The conference agreement also contains several
other environmentally related provisions, including an interim exemption for military
readiness activities from certain requirements under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
However, the conference committee did not adopt House proposals to provide broad
exemptions from the Endangered Species Act and targeted exemptions from the Wilderness
Act.
The second session also completed action on FY2003 appropriations for DOD,
including its environmental programs. P.L. 107-248 (H.R. 5010) appropriated $1.31 billion
for environmental cleanup at current and former military installations, $6 million less than
the funding level of $1.32 billion that would be authorized under H.R. 4546, and nearly $34
million more than the FY2002 appropriation of $1.28 billion. As in defense authorization
legislation, funding for environmental compliance, pollution prevention, environmental
technology, and conservation will come primarily from appropriations for the Operation and
Maintenance, Procurement, and Research and Development Accounts. P.L. 107-249 (H.R.
5011) appropriated $561 million for base closure activities, which includes support for the
cleanup of environmental contamination, $4 million less than the funding level of $565
million that would be authorized under H.R. 4546, and $72 million less than the FY2002
appropriation of nearly $633 million. The 107th Congress did not complete action on
FY2003 appropriations for DOE’s defense nuclear waste management and cleanup
responsibilities. A continuing resolution (P.L. 107-294, H.J.Res. 124) provides funding for
these activities at the FY2002 funding level of approximately $6.49 billion through January
11, 2003. Final appropriations for FY2003 are expected to be considered early in the first
session of the 108th Congress. Funding for FY2004 will be considered during the first
session as well. (CRS Report RL31456, Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:
Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003, provides additional information.)
Global Climate Change
(by Susan Fletcher and Brent Yacobucci)
The key piece of climate change legislation in the 107th Congress was 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, among other things, establish a voluntary greenhouse gas database
and promote research and development on climate change. The House version of the bill
contained reauthorization language for EPA’s climate-related programs. The Congress
adjourned without reconciling these bills. The 107th Congress had also included climate
CRS-12

---

IB10067
12-9-02
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. 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.
It is likely that climate change and greenhouse gas issues will again be the subject of
legislation or hearings in the 108th Congress.
(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 107th Congress considered, but did not enact 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,
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 have authorized the Secretary of Commerce to
issue licenses to qualified persons and to restrict the sale, purchase, and distribution of
CRS-13

---

IB10067
12-9-02
certain chemicals to licensees. S. 2579 would have amended the Clean Air Act to eliminate
the names and locations of facilities from publicly available facility risk management plans,
and made public disclosure of such information by government officials a crime. The bill
also would have expanded official access to the plans.
The bill that established the new Department of Homeland Security, H.R.5005, does not
address chemical plant security directly. However, if facilities are part of the “critical
infrastructure” (as are water utilities, for example), the new law will exempt from FOIA
requirements information about the plants’ vulnerability to terrorism if it is submitted
voluntarily to the Department. The Department of Homeland Security is required to analyze
vulnerabilities and recommend methods of enhancing site security.
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. On October 10, 2002,
the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5605, authorizing an FY2003
appropriation of $8.3 billion. EPA is being operated at FY2002 levels until January 11,
2003. (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 acted to consider specific ways to improve the quality of
science at EPA, to fund Agency programs, and to authorize the EPA Office of Air and
Radiation and EPA’s climate change programs.
CRS-14

---

IB10067
12-9-02
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 proposed 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 the Science to
Achieve Results fellows grants program and recommended $9.75 million.
As passed by the House on August 2, 2001, and the Senate on April 25, 2002, with the
last conference held on October 3, 2002, H.R. 4 inter alia authorizes EPA climate programs.
Earlier, two bills in the 107th Congress would authorize appropriations for EPA’s Office of
Air and Radiation, and EPA’s Climate Change Protection Programs. Placed on the Union
Calendar on July 31, 2001, H.R. 2460 Subtitle G authorizes them 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. As placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar on September 4, 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). H.R. 4
also makes EPA responsible for emissions monitoring, measurement, verification, and data
collection as part of a voluntary greenhouse gas database.
One significant issue for the 108th Congress likely will be funding EPA’s work on
homeland security and other concerns. EPA’s FY2003 S&T budget request included $75
million for homeland security efforts, including research and development of ways to more
rapidly and effectively decontaminate buildings, detect terrorism hazards, and transfer new
technologies to first-responders (see CRS Report RS21270 Counterterrorism Research and
Development for related information). Other FY2003 S&T budget requests include $10.8
million for researching aggregate exposure and cumulative risk of pesticide exposures, $9.8
million for a national competition to encourage the use of innovative environmental
technologies, and $4.9 million for research into possible allergenicity and ecological effects
of engineered crops.
CRS-15

---