Environmental Protection Issues in the 106th Congress

Environmental Protection Issues in the 106th Congress

Order Code IB10003
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 106th Congress
Updated June 7, 2000

Martin R. Lee, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Reauthorizing Superfund (by Mark Reisch)
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs
(by David Bearden)
Solid Waste Issues
(by James McCarthy)
Reauthorizing the Clean Water Act (by Claudia Copeland)
Clean Air Act (by James McCarthy)
Global Climate Change (by Martin Lee)
Toxic Release Inventory Expansion (by Linda Schierow)
Overseeing Implementation of New Requirements
Safe Drinking Water Act (by Mary Tiemann)
Regulating Pesticides (by Linda Schierow)
Surface Transportation and the Environment (by David Bearden
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency
(by Martin R. Lee)
Environmental Research and Development
(by Michael Simpson)

IB10003
06-07-00
Environmental Protection Issues in the 106th Congress
SUMMARY
Reforming Superfund, defense cleanup-
Clean Water Act. Key issues associated with
compliance, funding measures, beach
water quality wastewater capital needs, animal
assessment, air-related risk management plans,
wastes, and nonpoint source pollution. Bills
and research received congressional attention
on estuaries, Long Island sound, Chesapeake
in the 106th Congress, first session. In the
Bay, Clean Lakes and beach quality are at
second session, there may be action related on
various stages in the legislative process.
water quality programs involving specific
water bodies, and funding of environmental
Clean Air. The gasoline additive MTBE,
programs.
regulation of sulphur, automobile inspection

and maintenance, and ozone transport, are
Superfund. The House Transportation Com-
some current air quality issues. The President
mittee and Infrastructure Committee approved
signed P.L. 106-40 ( S. 880) to modify risk
H.R. 1300, and the Committee on Commerce
management plans. On August 4, 1999 the
approved H.R. 2580, comprehensive
Senate adopted an appropriations amendment
Superfund amendments. An amendment to S.
(S. 1233) expressing the sense of the Senate
4 reinstating the tax fell on a point of order in
on phasing out MTBE in gasoline.
the Senate. A vetoed tax bill, H.R. 2488,
would have combined the Superfund and
Global Climate Change. Congressional
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund.
interest in the many facets of the U.N. (Kyoto)
Measures enacted were a 1-year extension of
Protocol on Climate Change is expected to
the brownfields tax incentive (in the Tax
remain high.
Extenders bill, H.R. 1180, H.Rept. 106-478),
and a provision relieving recyclers of
Toxics Release Inventory. Another issue
CERCLA liability if they meet certain condi-
involves expanding EPA reporting require-
tions (in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, H.R.
ments to include new industries and chemicals.
3194, H.Rept. 106-479).
Overseeing New Requirements. Congress
Defense Cleanup. P.L. 106-65 (S.1059)
continues to oversee implementation of recent
includes FY2000 and FY2001 authorizations
provisions on drinking water, pesticides, and
for the multi-billion defense effort to remediate
transportation-environmental programs.
contamination and meet current environmental
regulations. Congress also enacted the three
Research. On May 26, 1999, the House
FY2000 appropriations bills; action on
Science Committee approved H.R. 1742
FY2001 authorization and appropriation bills
authorizing EPA R&D programs and H.R.
is underway.
1743 authorizing EPA’s Air and Radiation
Office.
Solid/Hazardous Wastes. Solid waste issues
include interstate shipment, “flow control,”
EPA Budget. P.L. 106-74 included $7.6
and the management of remedial wastes.
billion; the FY2001 request seeks $7.3 billion.
International waste trade is also a concern.
The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $7.2 billion on June 7, 2000.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10003
06-07-00
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The 106th Congress has acted on several environmental bills listed in Table 1. In the
second session, Congress is considering legislation on certain clean water programs and
funding of environmental programs.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The 106th Congress has acted on several environmental protection bills as indicated by
Table 1. For the remainder of the Congress, the focus may be on several bills addressing
specific clean water activities involving certain water bodies, and funding of environmental
protection activities.
Congress also continues to be concerned about the use of risk analysis and management
in environmental management, as well as reform of regulatory processes. (For more on risk
reform legislation, see CRS Issue Brief 94036, The Role of Risk Analysis and Risk
Management in Environmental Protection. For more on regulatory reform legislation, see
CRS Issue Brief 95035, Federal Regulatory Reform: An Overview.)
Table 1. Major Environmental Protection Legislation of the 106th Congress
Superfund-
H.R. 1300
Reported by
Comprehensive Superfund reauthorization bill
Transportation
and Infrastructure,
(H.Rept. 106-353,
Part I), 8/5/99
--
H.R. 2580
Ordered reported
Comprehensive Superfund reauthorization bill
by Commerce,
10/13/99
--
S.Amdt. 29
Fell on a point of
Proposed reinstatement of the Superfund Tax
to S. 4
order, 2/24/99
--
H.R. 2488
Tax cut bill,
Proposed combining Superfund and Leaking
vetoed 9/23/99
Underground Storage Tank trust funds
--
P.L. 106-170
Signed 12/17/99
One year extension of brownfields tax incentive
(H.R. 1180)
--
P.L. 106-113
Signed 11/29/99
Provision relieving recyclers of liability
(H.R. 3194)
Defense Cleanup and
P.L. 106-65
Signed
Includes provisions authorizing defense
Compliance-
(S. 1059)
10/5/99
environmental programs for FY2000
--
P.L. 106-79
Signed 10/25/99
Department of Defense FY2000 Appropriations,
(H.R. 2561)
funding DOD environmental programs
--
P.L. 106-52
Signed
Military Construction FY2000 Appropriations,
(H.R. 2465 )
8/17/99
funding for cleaning up closed bases
--
P.L. 106-60
Signed
Energy and Water Appropriations, FY2000, for
( H.R. 2605)
9/29/99
remediation of defense nuclear wastes
--
H.R. 4205
Passed House
Defense FY2001 Authorization Act, authorizes
5/18
DOD environmental programs
CRS-1

IB10003
06-07-00
--
S. 2549
Reported by
Defense FY2001 Authorization Act, authorizes
Senate Armed
DOD environmental programs
Services, S.Rept.
106-292, 5/12/00
--
H.R. 4425
Passed House
Military Construction FY2001 Appropriations,
5/16/00; Senate,
funding for cleaning up closed bases
5/18/00
--
S. 2593
Reported by
Department of Defense FY2001 Appropriations,
Senate
funding DOD environmental programs
Appropriations,
S.Rept. 106-298,
5/18/00
--
H.R. 4576
Reported by
Department of Defense FY2001 Appropriations,
House
funding DOD environmental programs
Appropriations,
H. Rept. 106-644.
6/1/00
Clean Water-
H.R. 999/ S.522
Passed House,
Amends Clean Water Act to require states to
4/22/99; reported
adopt water quality criteria and standards for
by Senate
pathogens in recreational waters
Environment and
Public Works
4/13/00
--
H.R. 2328
Passed House,
Amends Clean Water Act to reauthorize Clean
4/12/00
Lakes Program.
--
H.R. 1237
Passed House
Amends Clean Water Act to reauthorize the
5/8/00
National Estuary Program
--
S. 835
Passed Senate,
Would encourage estuary protection and amend
4/30/00
the Clean Water Act to reauthorize the National
Estuary Program.
--
H.R. 3313
Passed House
Amends the Clean Water Act to reauthorize
5/9/00
appropriations for the Long Island Sound Program
--
S. 1632
Reported by
Authorizes appropriations for the Long Island
Environment and
Sound Estuary Cleanup Program.
Public Works,
S.Rept. 106-182,
10/13/99
--
H.R. 3039
Passed House,
Amends the Clean Water Act to modify provisions
4/12/00
concerning the Chesapeake Bay
--
S. 492
Reported by
Amends the Clean Water Act to modify provisions
Environment and
concerning the Chesapeake Bay
Public Works,
S.Rept. 106-181,
10/13/99
--
H.R. 1106
Passed House
Grants for alternative water sources
5/4/00
--
H.R. 2957
Passed House
Amends the Clean Water Act to authorize Lake
5/3/00
Ponchartrain water quality projects
--
H.R. 673
Passed House
Authorizes grants for Florida Keys water quality
5/8/00
projects.
Clean Air-
P.L. 106-40
Signed
Modifies Clean Air Act-mandated risk
(S. 880)
8/5/99
management plans.
--
S. 1731
Passed Senate
Amends the Clean Air Act to require certain
3/27/2000
reports
CRS-2

IB10003
06-07-00
--
S. 1053
Reported by
Amends the Clean Air Act to incorporate the
Environment and
grandfather provisions of the transportation
Public Works,
conformity regulations
S.Rept. 106-228,
2/2/2000
--
Amdt 1522 to
Passed Senate,
Amendment expressing the sense of the Senate on
S. 1233
3/2/2000
phasing out MTBE
Pesticides
S. 1134
Passed Senate,
Requires in §505 that federally funded schools
3/2/200
reduce students exposure to pesticides and notify
parents of planned applications.
Environmental
H.R. 1742
House Science
Authorizes EPA’s environmental research and
Research and
approved 5/26/99
development program
Development-
--
H.R. 1743
House Science
Authorizes EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation
approved 5/26/99
programs
EPA Appropriations-
P.L. 106-74
Signed 10/20/99
Funds EPA at $7.6 billion for FY2000.
(H.R. 2684)
Environmental
H.Amdt. 4 to H.R.
Defeated 2/10/99
Would have established a point of order against
Regulations-
350
any bill that would eliminate or weaken
provisions protecting the public health, safety, or
environment.
Reauthorizing Superfund (by Mark Reisch)
The outlook for broad Superfund reauthorization during the second session appears
increasingly unlikely as efforts appear to be moving toward a brownfields bill. However, that
approach may be limited in light of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s stated opposition to any
“carveouts” from a comprehensive Superfund bill this year. In the Senate, new Superfund
subcommittee chairman Lincoln Chafee (son of the late Senator John Chafee, who was chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Committee) called a hearing on March 21, 2000, to take
a fresh look at the Superfund program. On March 30 he introduced two brownfields bills: S.
2335 would authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist states in cleaning up
brownfields, and S. 2334 would expand the number and types of brownfields eligible for favorable
tax treatment, and would extend the tax break an additional 6 years to the end of 2007. In the
House, H.R. 4003 was introduced by Representatives English, N. Johnson, and Weller; it too
would expand the tax treatment provisions, and would extend them to 2004. In the first session
of the 106th Congress, two Superfund provisions were enacted, and two bills to reauthorize the
Superfund program were reported, amended, to the House. Formally known as the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, the
Superfund Act is the principal federal law for cleaning up spills and other discharges of hazardous
substances.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported H.R. 1300, (H.Rept. 106-353,
Part I) on September 30, 1999, and the Commerce Committee ordered H.R. 2580 reported on
October 13. The two committees have worked to produce a single bill to go to the Ways and
Means Committee for consideration of renewing the Superfund taxes. H.R. 1300 contains a
“sense of the committee” provision recommending reinstatement of the taxes to a level sufficient
to fund the bill’s authorization; H.R. 2580 is silent on taxes. Ways and Means Chairman Archer
CRS-3

IB10003
06-07-00
opposes reinstating the taxes, but has proposed earmarking a portion of existing corporate taxes
for the Superfund program instead.
Both House bills would authorize grant programs for brownfield assessments and
remediation, but would preserve EPA’s authority to respond to a hazardous substance release to
prevent or address an emergency. Both bills would make more information available to local
communities about Superfund sites, and H.R. 1300 would enhance citizen participation in
decision-making. They have the same provisions to improve public health authorities. The bills
have different liability provisions, but both would provide relief to small businesses, recyclers,
municipalities, and innocent landowners; and funding to pay for the liability exemptions and for
orphan shares would also be provided for. The bills also differ on remedy selection. H.R. 1300
authorizes the program for 8 years — at a level of $1.5 billion for the first 4 years, then gradually
declining to $975 million in FY2007. H.R. 2580 authorizes the program for 5 years — at $1.5
billion for the first 3 years, then declining to $1.35 billion in FY2004.
In the Senate, the Environment and Public Works Committee agreed on August 4, 1999, to
end further consideration of S. 1090 after extensive negotiations did not produce a bipartisan
compromise. Senators John Chafee and Bob Smith (the new committee chairman) then
introduced S. 1537 on August 5. Based on S. 1090, it also contains provisions on cleanup
remedies and natural resource damages. Senator Baucus has introduced a broad Superfund
reauthorization bill as well, S. 1105. It shares many of the features of S. 1090, but more closely
reflects EPA’s viewpoint. It reinstates the taxes and places no limits on the National Priorities
List.
Two Superfund provisions were enacted in the final days of the first session of the 106th
Congress. A 1-year extension (to December 31, 2001) of the brownfields tax incentive was
included in the Tax Extenders bill (P.L. 106-180, H.R. 1180, H.Rept.106-478), and a provision
relieving recyclers of CERCLA liability if they meet certain conditions was incorporated in the
Omnibus Appropriations bill (P.L. 106-113, H.R. 3194, H.Rept. 106-479). The brownfields tax
incentive was originally enacted as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34, H.R.
2014); it permits cleanup costs to be deducted from current income rather than capitalized over
a period of years at designated brownfields and certain other distressed areas.
The Superfund appropriation for FY2000 is $1.4 billion (P.L. 106-74, H.R. 2684, H.Rept.
106-379); $100 million will not become available for obligation until September 1, 2000. Half
of the appropriation comes from the Superfund Trust Fund, and half from general revenues. The
full request for the brownfields program was provided: $91.7 million, the same as in FY1999.
The report also directs EPA to contract with Resources for the Future to perform an independent
analysis of anticipated costs of administering CERCLA activities at Superfund sites for the next
10 years.
For FY2001 EPA is asking for $1.45 billion for the Superfund program, $50 million less than
the FY2000 request, but $50 million more than Congress provided last year. The pertinent House
Appropriations subcommittee has recommended the same amount as for last year. (For further
discussion, see CRS Issue Brief IB10011, Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 106th
Congress.)
CRS-4

IB10003
06-07-00
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs
(by David Bearden)
In the remainder of the 106th Congress, it is likely there will be continued action on bills
authorizing and appropriating funds for environmental programs at the Department of Defense.
The DOD is responsible for remediating contamination and controlling pollution at military
facilities. Congress it annually authorizes programs for national defense as well as appropriating
funding for them each fiscal year. DOD administers six environmental programs: environmental
cleanup at current and former military facilities, cleanup at military bases designated for closure,
environmental compliance, pollution prevention, environmental technology, and natural resource
conservation. In addition to these programs, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for
managing defense nuclear waste generated from the past production of atomic materials used to
construct nuclear weapons and for remediating contaminated sites.
The first session of the 106th Congress completed consideration of legislation to authorize
and appropriate funding for DOD and DOE’s defense cleanup and environmental programs in
FY2000, including the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-65, S. 1059),
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-79, H.R. 2561), Military
Construction Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-52, H.R. 2465), and Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-60, H.R. 2605). (CRS Report RL30111,
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2000,
discusses each of these laws.)
For FY2001, the Administration has requested a total of $10.44 billion for DOD and DOE’s
defense cleanup and environmental programs, which is about $740 million more than the FY2000
funding level of $9.70 billion and about 3.4% of the total national defense request of $305.42
billion. Of the $10.44 billion requested for FY2001, the President’s budget would allocate
approximately $1.60 billion for environmental compliance, $1.27 billion for environmental
cleanup at current and former military facilities, $865.3 million for cleanup at military bases
designated for closure, $247.7 million for pollution prevention, $186.7 million for environmental
technology, $124.0 million for natural resource conservation, and a total of $6.15 billion for
DOE’s management of defense nuclear waste and remediation of contaminated sites.
The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 (H.R. 4205) on May
18, 2000, and the Senate Armed Services Committee reported its version of the bill (S. 2549,
S.Rept. 106-292) on May 12, 2000. Both bills would authorize $1.27 billion for cleanup at
current and former military facilities, the same as requested. For DOE’s management of defense
nuclear waste and cleanup of contaminated nuclear weapons sites, H.R. 4205 would authorize
$5.93 billion, and S. 2549 would authorize $6.02 billion, both of which are below the requested
level of $6.15 billion. As in past years, neither bill specifies the amount of funding that would be
authorized for environmental compliance, pollution prevention, environmental technology, natural
resource conservation, and cleanup at base closure sites, which receive their funding from larger
accounts for operation and maintenance and base realignment and closure respectively.
The House passed the Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY2001 (H.R. 4425)
on May 16, 2000, and the Senate passed its version of H.R. 4425 on May 18, 2000. Both the
House and Senate versions of the bill would provide $865.3 million for cleanup at base closure
sites, the same as requested. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the Department of
CRS-5

IB10003
06-07-00
Defense Appropriations Act for FY2001 (S. 2593, S.Rept. 106-298) on May 18, 2000, and the
House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the bill (H.R. 4576, H.Rept. 106-644)
on June 1, 2000. As reported, S. 2593 would provide $1.31 billion for cleanup at current and
former military facilities, about $30 million more than the House’s proposal of $1.28 billion in
H.R. 4576 and roughly $40 million more than the amount of $1.27 billion that would be
authorized by H.R. 4205 and S. 2549 and has been requested by the Administration.
Consideration of the appropriations bill for energy and water development, which funds DOE’s
defense environmental management program, will likely begin soon. (CRS Report RL30554,
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2001,
discusses each of these bills.)
Solid Waste Issues
(by James McCarthy)
The prospects for solid waste legislation in the 106th Congress appear to be dimming. Little
action was taken on waste issues in the first session, and consensus regarding the need for
legislation appears to be lacking. The 106th Congress inherited three solid waste issues from the
105th and earlier Congresses: interstate shipment of waste, the management of what are called
“remediation wastes” from old hazardous waste sites, and the Basel Convention on
Transboundary Movement of Waste., of which the United States is a signatory, but for which
implementing legislation has not been enacted. The Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee held a hearing on the first of these issues (interstate shipment of waste) June 17, 1999.
(For additional information on solid waste issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10002, Solid Waste
Issues in the 106th Congress. For more information on international waste trade, see CRS Report
98-638, Waste Trade and the Basel Convention: Background and Update.)
Reauthorizing the Clean Water Act (by Claudia Copeland)
Prospects for comprehensive reauthorization of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the 106th
Congress remain uncertain, as they have been for several years. In the 106th Congress, House
and Senate committees have held several oversight hearings on implementation of existing
provisions of the law, but no committee activity to reauthorize the entire law has occurred or is
expected. However, several bills dealing with individual water quality issues have passed the
House or the Senate, and a number of other bills have been reported by committees. The Act was
last amended in 1987, and authorizations for most programs expired on September 30, 1990. No
major Clean Water Act reauthorization legislation was introduced in the 105th Congress, and no
major House or Senate committee activity occurred.
Originally enacted in 1948 and significantly revised in 1972 (P.L. 92-500), the Clean Water
Act is the principal law governing pollution in the nation’s lakes, rivers, and coastal waters and
authorizing funds to aid construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Since 1972,
implementation of the law and application of pollution control technology by industries and cities
have 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, these same survey
data indicate that about 40% of surface waters fail to meet standards. Nevertheless, the CWA
has been viewed as one of the nation’s most successful environmental laws in terms of achieving
CRS-6

IB10003
06-07-00
the statutory goals, which have been widely supported by interest groups and the public, but lately
has been criticized over whether further benefits are worth the costs.
Legislative prospects for reauthorizing the CWA have recently been at an impasse over
whether and exactly how to change the law. Issues that might be addressed during
reauthorization are not, for the most part, easily amenable to straight-forward, consensus
solutions. Many 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 reauthorize or modify selected CWA programs.
Indeed, activity on bills dealing with specific water quality issues has occurred in the 106th
Congress. On April 22, 1999, the House passed H.R. 999, to require states to adopt water
quality criteria and standards for pathogens in recreational waters. On March 30, 2000, the
Senate passed S. 835, to establish a federal interagency council to develop a national strategy for
selecting and prioritizing estuary habitat restoration projects. In April, the House approved H.R.
2328, to reauthorize the clean lakes program at a level of $50 million per year through FY2005,
and H.R. 3039, to expand federal and interstate efforts that currently exist for restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay. In May, the House passed H.R. 2957, authorizing $108 million for a Lake
Pontchartrain Basin restoration program; H.R. 673, authorizing EPA to make infrastructure
improvement grants to improve water quality in the Florida Keys marine ecosystem; and H.R.
1106, authorizing EPA to make grants on a cost-shared basis for alternative water source projects
to enhance water supplies. The House also passed H.R. 1237, to reauthorize the National Estuary
Program (CWA sec. 320) and H.R. 3313, to reauthorize funding for the Long Island Sound
estuary program. Congressional committees also have reported bills authorizing appropriations
for a number of other Clean Water Act programs (H.R. 1775, concerning estuary habitat
restoration projects, a companion bill to S. 835; S. 1632, concerning Long Island Sound; S. 492,
concerning cleanup of Chesapeake Bay; and S. 522, a companion bill to H.R. 999 concerning
water quality standards for recreational waters), and these bills could receive full House and
Senate consideration in the near future.
If broader clean water issues receive attention in the 106th Congress, topics that might be of
interest include managing animal wastes to minimize water quality and public health impacts,
measures to address polluted runoff from farms and city streets, and funding. Impacts of the
Act’s wetlands permit program, a pivotal and contentious issue in the recent past, also remain on
the legislative agenda for many. In 1999 and 2000, House and Senate committees have held
several oversight hearings on implementation of current law and Administration water quality
initiatives, particularly concerning details of an August 1999 regulatory proposal to strengthen
CWA programs for restoring impaired waters. Whether these oversight hearings will lead to
more comprehensive legislative activity is unclear.
(For further information, see CRS Report 98-946, Clean Water Issues in the 106th Congress, and
CRS Issue Brief IB10001, Clean Water Act Reauthorization.)
CRS-7

IB10003
06-07-00
Clean Air Act (by James McCarthy)

Bills to diminish the use of MTBE, a gasoline additive, are at the top of the clean air agenda
in the remaining days of this Congress, but formidable obstacles lie in the path of legislation.
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. The additive makes gasoline burn more cleanly,
but it has been implicated in numerous incidents of ground water contamination. H.R. 11, a bill
to waive the oxygen requirement in California only, was approved by the Commerce Committee’s
Subcommittee on Health and Environment September 30, 1999, but has since stalled as
discussions continue regarding broader legislation. Further markup of legislation to restrict
MTBE use or to waive the oxygen requirement is possible in both House and Senate committees,
although the prospects for passage by the full House and Senate remain clouded. Of particular
concern are the potential impacts of any such legislation on the use of other oxygenates,
principally ethanol. Ethanol is made largely from corn; a sizeable group of Governors, Members
and Senators from agricultural states is concerned that changes in the Act not adversely affect
ethanol’s use.
Congress last enacted major amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the midst of implementing numerous provisions of
those amendments. Recent efforts include development of tighter emission standards for vehicles
and fuels, promulgation of programs to control regional haze and ozone transport,
implementation of controls on sources of 188 air toxics, implementation of Phase 2 of the acid
precipitation program, and review of state implementation plans for attaining ozone air quality
standards. EPA decisions regarding implementation of these and other programs mandated by
the Clean Air Act will provide opportunities for oversight in the remaining days of the 106th
Congress.
The Clean Air Act and its 1990 amendments appear to have contributed to a marked
improvement in air quality nationwide. Of nearly 100 metropolitan areas not meeting air quality
standards for ozone in 1990, about two-thirds now do so. Even greater progress has been
achieved with carbon monoxide: 36 of 42 areas not in attainment in 1990 now meet the standard.
Nevertheless, EPA remains concerned about air pollution. In 1997, the Agency promulgated
major revisions to its air quality standards for ozone and particulates, an action that would require
most states and urban areas to establish additional controls on a wide range of pollution sources.
The revised standards were challenged by numerous parties and the courts have remanded the
standards to EPA. Implementation is currently in limbo, pending resolution of appeals.
Other issues that could be the subject of legislation or oversight include how and whether
to control long-distance ozone transport, including the desirability of additional regulation for
sources of nitrogen oxides such as electric utilities, and whether plans for new highways must
conform to emission budgets under the Clean Air Act. The Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee has reported legislation on the latter topic (S. 1053, S.Rept. 106-228). The
same committee also reported a bill (S. 1731, S.Rept. 106-191) and the Senate passed it on
March 27, 2000. It would continue certain Clean Air Act reporting requirements that had been
abolished in earlier legislation. In addition, a Senate subcommittee has begun hearings concerning
reauthorization of the Clean Air Act. These hearings are expected to continue this year.
The current Congress has already taken action on one Clean Air Act issue. On August 5,
1999, the President signed S. 880 (P.L. 106-40), a bill that modified the Act's risk management
CRS-8

IB10003
06-07-00
planning requirement for facilities that handle extremely hazardous substances. (For additional
information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10004, Clean Air Act Issues in the 106th Congress.)

Global Climate Change (by Martin Lee)
Congress’ interest in the many dimensions of global climate change will probably remain high
during the remainder of the 106th Congress, particularly since a final international agreement has
been negotiated. On November 11, 1998, the United States signed the U.N. (Kyoto) Protocol
on Climate Change, which would limit greenhouse gas emissions. It is unclear when the
Administration will forward the agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent.
There are numerous associated policy issues as well as scientific controversies about the
time, rate, magnitude and regional consequences of potential climate change. Among the policy
questions are the appropriate international and national policy responses, and effects of a
reduction in greenhouse gases on taxes, jobs, energy costs, and other aspects of the economy.
(Several CRS products address the various aspects of the debate. A CRS electronic briefing book
on global climate change is available at [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.html]. CRS
Issue Brief 89005, Global Climate Change, discusses the scientific background of the greenhouse
effect as well as the international context of the issue.
Toxic Release Inventory Expansion (by Linda Schierow)
The 106th Congress does not appear likely to amend the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) to clarify EPA authority to expand reporting
requirements to include new industries, new chemicals, or information about how chemicals are
used. Congress enacted EPCRA in 1986 as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act, P.L. 99-499 . EPCRA, Section 313, directed EPA to establish a national
inventory of toxic releases to the environment by manufacturing facilities. The Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) is EPA’s computerized compilation of the submitted data. Its purpose is to make
information available to the public about chemicals released in their communities.
EPA has expanded and plans to further expand chemical reporting requirements under the
authority of EPCRA Section 313. On November 30, 1994, EPA added 286 chemicals to the TRI
list for which releases must be reported (59 Federal Register 61432-61485). EPA added
reporting requirements for seven industries April 22, 1997. On October 29, 1999, EPA added
7 chemicals and 2 chemical compound categories, one of which includes 17 specified dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds, to the list of chemicals subject to reporting requirements (64 Federal
Register 58666). At the same time, the Agency increased reporting requirements for certain other
TRI chemicals by reducing the threshold for releases that triggers reporting requirements. EPA
had proposed to do the same for lead 2 months earlier (64 Federal Register 42221-42243,
August 3, 1999). Final action is expected for lead during April 2000. The October 1999
Regulatory Agenda noted that EPA is planning to consider adding oil and gas exploration to the
list of industries covered by TRI reporting rules (64 Federal Register 65118). Finally, EPA is
conducting “the first systematic review of toxicology and environmental data for all the chemicals
on the original TRI list to determine whether they accord with the statutory criteria for listing of
CRS-9

IB10003
06-07-00
chemicals. EPA expects to propose delisting chemicals by the end of 2000, if data do not meet
the statutory criteria (64 Federal Register 65122).
Currently, EPCRA requires facilities to report the amount of each covered chemical released
into the environment or transferred offsite for treatment or disposal. In 1990, Congress enacted
the Pollution Prevention Act (P.L. 101-508, title IV) requiring manufacturers and processors of
toxic substances to include in their TRI annual reports additional information about source
reduction and recycling. On October 1, 1996, EPA announced that it was considering whether
to expand TRI information collection to include chemical use data, including “amounts of a toxic
chemical coming into a facility, amounts transformed into products and wastes, and the resulting
amounts leaving the facility site” (61 Federal Register 51321). However, due to “competing
priorities,” EPA has placed this project on hold and plans no activities for 2000, according to the
October 1999 Regulatory Agenda (64 Federal Register 65122). Some chemical use data (for
example, on worker exposure) may be collected under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA).
In the 106th Congress, S. 1112 and H. R. 1657 would require industries to report emissions
of chemicals that “may present a significant risk to children’s health or the environment” due to
their potential to bioaccumulate, disrupt endocrine systems, remain in the environment, or
degrade into persistent or bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances. It would require EPA
to set threshold amounts of the chemicals to ensure reporting for at least 80% of all industrial
releases of each. H.R. 1463 and S. 775 would expand TRI reporting to commercial and military
airports. (For more information about the TRI and proposed legislation, see CRS Report 97-970
ENR, Toxics Release Inventory: Do Communities Have a Right to Know More?
Overseeing Implementation of New Requirements
Safe Drinking Water Act (by Mary Tiemann)
In the remaining months of the 106th Congress, Congress is likely to continue oversight of
EPA’s implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), particularly regarding provisions
added in 1996 (P.L. 104-182). These amendments created new programs and imposed new
requirements on states, EPA, and public water systems. Deadlines for several provisions occur
this Congress, and EPA, states and communities will be required to implement new programs and
regulations. Of current interest, EPA is preparing to issue regulations for radon by November
2000, and for arsenic by January 1, 2001. During the first session, the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, held a hearing on
SDWA implementation, and the House Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health and
Environment, held a hearing focused on drinking water research issues. Increasing detections of
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in drinking water supplies have prompted additional hearings
and legislation. (See CRS Report 98-290 ENR, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking
Water Issues.)
First enacted in 1974, SDWA, as amended, is administered through regulatory programs that
establish standards and treatment techniques for public water systems and that control the
underground injection of wastes to protect drinking water sources. More recent provisions
include programs that provide financial assistance to communities for water treatment projects,
CRS-10

IB10003
06-07-00
promote protection of source waters, and help public water systems improve their compliance
capacity.
The first major amendments, enacted in 1986 (P.L. 99-339), sought to increase EPA’s
standard-setting pace. However, the Act became widely criticized for failing to give EPA
flexibility to focus on contaminants of greatest concern and for imposing an onerous regulatory
schedule on EPA, states, and communities. Implementation of the 1986 amendments also
increased state and local dissatisfaction over broader issues involving regulatory flexibility and
unfunded mandates.
With the 1996 amendments, Congress revised the Act to focus resources on contaminants
posing the greatest risks, provide funding for drinking water mandates, improve compliance, and
prevent pollution of water sources. The 1996 provisions revised the standard setting schedule and
process, directed EPA to conduct risk and cost analyses for new standards, and authorized a State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program to help communities finance drinking water projects. It expanded
consumer reporting requirements and added programs for source water assessment, operator
certification, and compliance capacity building. (For more details, see CRS Report 96-722, Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996: Overview of P.L. 104-182.)

EPA, states, and public water systems are now implementing the new provisions. In the SRF
program, by December 1999, EPA had awarded $2.34 billion in capitalization grants to states,
and states had made 956 loans to water systems for drinking water projects worth a total of $1.87
billion. (See CRS Report 97-677, Safe Drinking Water Act: State Revolving Fund Program.)
EPA has issued rules to control disinfection byproducts and microbial contaminants, and
upcoming radon, radium, and arsenic rules could pose significant challenges for small systems.
Among other efforts, states are developing several programs intended to improve public water
systems’ compliance capacity.
Regulating Pesticides (by Linda Schierow)
Legislative action appears unlikely this year, although the 106th Congress has closely
monitored EPA implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA; P.L. 104-170), which
amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) in 1996. EPA regulates the use of pesticides under authority
of FIFRA. FIFRA authorities are summarized in CRS Report RL30022, Environmental Laws:
Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to
regulating pesticide use, EPA sets allowable pesticide residue levels for food (tolerances) under
authority of the FFDCA. These are enforced through food sampling by the Food and Drug
Administration and the Department of Agriculture. FQPA established a new, stricter safety
standard for pesticide residue regulations for food (i.e., tolerances): regulations must ensure “a
reasonable certainty of no harm.” The act requires EPA to re-evaluate all tolerances in effect in
1996 by August 3, 2006. At issue generally is the process through which EPA is implementing
the new law.
Grower and pesticide industry groups would like EPA to implement FQPA through a notice-
and-comment procedure (i.e., 5 U.S.C. 553), which would be more transparent and allow them
to plan for contingencies, but EPA claims that scarce time and resources prevent that approach.
What primarily concerns pesticide interests is the possibility that EPA might overestimate risks
(by relying on default assumptions and models), and then revoke or restrict pesticide registrations
CRS-11

IB10003
06-07-00
under FIFRA for widely used pesticides. Thus, they want EPA to “call in” data (i.e., to issue an
order for certain data to be produced); EPA’s failure to issue a data call in (using authority
provided by FIFRA) was an issue raised by a lawsuit filed June 7, 1999, by 18 grower and
chemical producer organizations.
Consumer and public health advocacy groups accuse EPA of “dragging its feet” in
implementing FQPA. They believe that the new safety standard mandates reducing use of many
older pesticides. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and six California-based public
interest groups allege in a lawsuit filed August 3, 1999 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit that delays already have caused EPA to miss the first FQPA deadline for reassessment of
one-third of existing tolerances by August 3, 1999 (Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. C993701CAL). The American Farm Bureau Federation
amended its June 7, 1999 suit a few weeks later, echoing NRDC concerns about delays. EPA
claims it did issue decisions for one-third of all pesticide tolerances by August 3, 1999, in addition
to canceling all registrations for methyl parathion and capping production and limiting use of
azinphos methyl (i.e., guthion), which might otherwise have been used in lieu of methyl parathion
on fruit crops. EPA believes that these two popular pesticides pose relatively high risks to
children.
Legislation (H.R. 1334) proposed March 25, 1999, would require EPA to collect new data
before the Agency could revoke, suspend, or modify a pesticide tolerance or exemption. Other
bills (H.R. 1592 and S. 1464) would require EPA to perform a “transition analysis” for proposed
or final rules, risk assessments, and other documents related to FQPA implementation. Such
analysis would specify when assumptions were used rather than data to reassess tolerances. The
bills also would prohibit tolerance revocation based on a preliminary risk assessment (in which
EPA relies on numerous default assumptions), require notice-and-comment rulemaking to
establish EPA science guidelines, and establish a permanent advisory committee of stakeholders.
For more detail on these issues, see CRS Report RS20043, Pesticide Residue Regulation:
Analysis of Food Quality Protection Act Implementation (updated August 1999).
In another pesticide-related measure, the Senate included a provision in S. 1134 (§505), the
Affordable Education Act of 2000, passed March 2, 2000, that would require federally funded
schools to reduce children’s exposure to pesticides and notify parents when pesticides are to be
applied.
Surface Transportation and the Environment (by David Bearden)
In the second session of the 106th Congress, the use of federal highway trust fund revenues
to address the environmental impacts of surface transportation may receive attention during
oversight of the implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21,
P.L. 105-178). TEA 21 significantly increased funding for programs previously authorized under
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, P.L. 102-240) and
established new initiatives as well. TEA 21 authorized a total of $218 billion for federal highway
and mass transit programs from FY1998 to FY2003 and set aside roughly $12.5 billion for several
programs to protect the environment. Congressional oversight of the implementation of these
programs could focus on the types of projects selected for funding and their effectiveness in
addressing environmental problems stemming from highway travel.
CRS-12

IB10003
06-07-00
The majority of environmental funding under TEA 21 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 and established new programs to assist
transit systems in purchasing low-emission buses, conduct environmental research, encourage
environmental technologies for motor vehicles, and support projects that integrate transportation
efficiency, community preservation, and environmental protection. Other provisions addressed
the operation of low-emission vehicles in high occupancy vehicle lanes, extended tax benefits for
alcohol-based fuels, 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, describes each of the above
programs and indicates the amount of funding authorized for them.)
Thus far, oversight of TEA 21's environmental provisions in the 106th Congress has focused
on requirements to streamline the environmental review process for highway projects. In the first
session, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee held hearings on April 29, 1999 and June 9, 1999 to oversee the
implementation of the streamlining provisions. The House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee’s Ground Transportation Subcommittee has also held two oversight hearings to
examine the issue, one on July 27, 1999 and the other on March 8, 2000. The Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration plan to jointly issue revised regulations and
guidance on the environmental review process for highway projects, based on comments received
in response to an options paper released last year, available online at
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tea21imp.htm]. In the meantime, the Department of
Transportation and six other federal agencies signed a memorandum of understanding in July
1999 which outlines several objectives intended to improve the efficiency of the environmental
review process while continuing to protect environmental quality. Refer to
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nmou4.htm] for the full text of the memorandum.
Subsequently, the Department of Transportation released a draft action plan to provide
implementation guidelines for each agency that signed the memorandum, available online at
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/apsr2_00.htm].
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency
(by Martin R. Lee)
Congressional action on funding for the EPA is a perennial activity. On February 1, 1999,
the President requested $7.2 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2000, about $400,000, or 5%, less than current year funding.
The major issue associated with this proposal was its proposed reduction of roughly $500 million
for clean Water State Revolving Funds. EPA appropriations are included in the annual
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill, which the House passed as H.R. 2684
(H.Rept. 106-286) on September 9, 1999. The Senate Appropriations Committee made its
recommendations on September 16th in S. 1596 (S.Rept. 106-161); the full Senate passed H.R.
2684, after substituting the language of S. 1596. House and Senate versions included about $7.3
billion while the final conference version (H.Rept. 106-379) provided a total of $7.6 billion. The
President signed the appropriation measure as P.L. 106-74 on October 20, 1999.
CRS-13

IB10003
06-07-00
For FY2001, the President requests $7.26 billion, roughly $300 million less than current year
funding. This primarily reflects decreased funding of about $500 million for wastewater treatment
funding to the states. The House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies held hearings on the proposal on March 16, 2000 and the
Senate Subcommittee on March 23, 2000. On May 23, the House Subcommittee recommended
$7.2 billion for the Agency and the full Committee recommended that amount on June 7, 2000.
(For more detail, see CRS Issue Brief IB10058, Environmental Protection Agency: FY2001
Budget Issues.)
Environmental Research and Development
(by Michael Simpson)
Congress is likely to continue interest, either in oversight or appropriations actions, of
several EPA science issues especially the appropriate prioritization of R&D activities and
funding levels. Two continuing issues include the quality of the science used by EPA and how
the agency develops and manages its data.
One example of the controversy about the quality of science used by EPA concerns the
Agency’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, being implemented under the Clean
Water Act, which relates to wastewater discharge limits and could affect a wide range of sources
that discharge into the nation’s waters, including industrial and municipal sources, as well as
agriculture and forestry. Whether the state of the science is sufficiently developed to support a
workable TMDL program has been questioned. Another example of the controversy about the
quality of science used by EPA concerns the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), focusing both on the science that allowed MTBE to be used in the first place, and on
the quality of science supporting the use of alternatives to MTBE. Finally, it is an ongoing
challenge to properly involve stakeholders in policy procedures while protecting confidentiality
and privacy rights and promoting objective, full, and open peer review of the research,
assumptions, and policy selection process. H.R. 574, “The Science Integrity Act,” is an example
of a bill on the soundness of science. (For more information about the TMDL issue, please see
CRS Report RL30422, EPA’s TMDL Program: Highlights of Proposed Changes and Impacts
on Agriculture; on MTBE, please see CRS Report 98-290, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and
Drinking Water Issues.)
Data quality and management is also a major issue associated with EPA’s R&D program.
Controversy exists concerning not only the condition and extensiveness of monitoring and
research equipment (which impact the quality of raw and analyzed environmental data), but also
the currency, completeness, appropriateness, and extensiveness of data used by EPA and that
made available for use and review outside the Agency. H.R. 1657, “Children’s Environmental
Protection and Right to Know Act of 1999,” is an example of a bill relating to the quality and
management (including release) of data. (Please see GAO/T-RCED-95-174 “Environmental
Protection: EPA’s Problems with Collection and Management of Data” for one perspective about
this controversy.)
The House Committee on Science approved two environmental authorization bills during
the first session. H.R. 1742 would authorize programs of the EPA Office of Research and
Development and the Science Advisory Board at $504.0 million for FY2000 and $519.9 million
CRS-14

IB10003
06-07-00
for FY2001. H.R. 1743 would authorize the Office of Air at $124.2 million for FY2000 and
$128.0 million for FY2001. It would also authorize EPA’s Climate Change Technology Initiative
activities at $105.8 million for FY2000 and $109.0 million for FY2001.
As for appropriations, P.L. 106-74 provides $645.0 million for EPA’s Science and
Technology appropriations account for Fiscal Year 2000. This is $2.5 million more than the
request of $642.5 million, which represented a 3 percent decrease when compared to FY1999
funding of $660.0 million. The S&T account incorporates elements of the former Research and
Development account (R&D, also called extramural research) as well as EPA’s in house R&D
and technology efforts.
The FY2001 request for Science and Technology is for $674.3 million, a 1% decrease
compared to $680.3 million enacted in FY2000. This FY2000 enacted level was 3% less than
the FY1999 enacted amount of $700 million.
CRS-15