Environmental Protection Issues: From the 104th to the 105th Congress

January 7, 1997
Martin R. Lee
Coordinator
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
97-80 ENR

SUMMARY

In regard to environmental protection programs, Congress may continue to be concerned with two primary matters: the costs of regulations to the regulated community and program efficiency/flexibility.

The continued interest in regulatory reform measures in the final moments of the 104th Congress suggests that the 105th Congress will consider them again. At the same time the fact that the 104th Congress enacted flexibility provisions in drinking water and food safety/pesticides legislation could be an indicator that the 105th Congress may pursue reforms in individual reauthorization legislation rather than in broad regulatory reform bills.

Superfund reform remains prominent on the congressional agenda. The 104th Congress adopted two appropriations riders and two amendments relating to lender liability and transferring contaminated federal land. There has been discussion of whether the 105th Congress will pursue a limited reform bill. Liability provisions, cleanup standards, state roles, and natural resource damages are prominent concerns.

Clean water reauthorization is also high on the agenda. In the 104th Congress, the House passed comprehensive reauthorization legislation. For the 105th Congress, issues of funding, regulatory reform in the Act, wetlands, and nonpoint source pollution remain.

As for the Clean Air Act, some continued to voice dissatisfaction with various components of the Act. The 104th Congress enacted four bills modifying certain provisions. The November 1996 release of proposed new ambient air standards for ozone and particulates makes review by the 105th Congress a certainty. Another major air quality issue is vehicle inspection and maintenance.y

In the area of waste management, it is likely that the 105th Congress, like the 104th, will be asked to consider piecemeal legislation on the interstate shipment of waste, state restrictions on waste disposal or "flow control," and management of remedial actions at hazardous waste sites rather than comprehensive. Also on the agenda will be the issue of the adequacy of state resources to implement underground storage tank programs.

For drinking water and pesticides, oversight of newly enacted provisions is likely. Establishment of the new state drinking water revolving fund and EPA's progress in registering pesticides are two primary oversight issues.

EPA's plans for promulgating and enforcing new chemical reporting requirements may also be an issue. The adequacy of funding for EPA programs and the efficiency of EPA's administering that funding will continue to be a major congressional concern. In the international area, continued congressional oversight of international agreements, particularly on climate change, is likely.

CONTENTS

Introduction

Regulatory Reform and Environmental Protection

Superfund: A Limited Reform Bill?

Reauthorizing the Clean Water Act

Clean Air Act

Solid Waste: Interstate Waste, Flow Control, and Managing Wastes?

Underground Storage Tanks

Toxic Release Inventory Expansion

Funding Environmental Protection

Safe Drinking Water Act: Overseeing Implementation

Regulating Pesticides

International Environment

Environmental Protection Issues: From the 104th to the 105th Congress

Introduction

As in the 104th Congress, the 105th Congress may continue to be concerned with the costs of environmental regulation and cleanup, and with making environmental programs more efficient and flexible through regulatory reform measures. Whether the 105th Congress addresses these concerns in the same way as the 104th remains to be seen, however.

The 105th Congress' agenda for environmental protection may be a combination of the unfinished work of the 104th Congress and many newly emerging issues. Since there was considerable legislative effort to develop controversial clean water, Superfund and solid waste legislation, the new Congress may choose to continue efforts toward reforming and reauthorizing these statutes. The 104th Congress considered broad regulatory reform legislation; some observers speculate that the 105th will seek to target such reform in individual environmental protection statutes rather than through expansive bills. Since the 104th Congress enacted drinking water and pesticides legislation, oversight of EPA's implementation is probable; it is unlikely that Congress would legislatively revisit these two statutes.

The Administration and Congress are examining various alternative approaches to the traditional foundations of the Nation's environmental protection policy. The 105th Congress may consider ways to incorporate alternative compliance and enforcement strategies, environmental audits, voluntary programs and corporate environmental management into the fabric of traditional environmental protection policy. Also, the 105th Congress can expect some input from certain ongoing examinations of the Nation's environmental policy by non-governmental groups as described in the following.

Some Upcoming Studies of Environmental Issues, Policy, and Management <1>

Enterprise for the Environment: The Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Keystone Center, and the National Academy of Public Administration are collaborating to conduct a policy forum titled Enterprise for the Environment. The objective of the forum is to reform EPA's regulatory structure, promote responsibility and accountability in industry regulated by EPA, and revise economic policies to promote a cleaner environment as an integral part of the U.S. economy. Early in the 105th Congress, the forum anticipates a report to Congress and the Administration providing recommendations based upon it conclusions.

National Academy of Public Administration: The Academy plans to release a congressionally mandated report in the spring of 1997 to assess EPA's implementation of recommendations in the Academy's 1995 report to Congress titled Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for EPA.

National Commission on Risk Assessment and Management: As mandated by Congress in the Clean Air Act of 1990, the Commission will release a report published in two separate parts in early 1997. The first part will provide general recommendations on using risk management to implement human health policies and will encourage all federal agencies to adopt a risk management framework for making policy decisions. The second part will provide specific federal agencies with recommendations that describe how to implement risk management in their programs.

Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy: The Next Generation of Environmental Policy Project will assess existing U.S. environmental programs and identify new tools and strategies to integrate environmental issues with decisions made across a broad range of public policies. The project will release a policy document in 1997. The Trade, Finance, and the Environment Project will examine the current and potential role of environmental protection in global trade liberalization and the opportunity for international capital to invest in environmental infrastructure.

Other groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, CATO Institute, National Environmental Policy Institute, and Resources for the Future, may issue singular reports or studies during the 105th Congress on specific environmental issues.

This report, completed at the January 1997 commencement of the 105th Congress, is both a review of 104th Congress' actions and an early exploration of issues that may arise during the 105th Congress. The dynamics of national policymaking make it uncertain as to the exact agenda and timeframe, however. That will depend on a variety of things including committee priorities, competing national legislation, and the positions of interested parties. So, this early view suggests but does not predict possible congressional interest. To place environmental protection in perspective among many other national issues, readers may wish to obtain CRS Report 97-1, 105th Congress: Key Issues and Early Agenda.

Frequently updated CRS products including issue briefs can assist congressional staff in keeping abreast of particular environmental issues and legislation.

Regulatory Reform and Environmental Protection <2>

During the first session of the 104th Congress, legislators considered reforming the overall U.S. approach to environmental protection and management. Concerned about the cost and inflexibility of federal regulations in general, Congress enacted legislation to bar "unfunded mandates" on state and local governments, to reduce the regulatory burden for small businesses, and to reform the rulemaking process. For agencies with environmental programs, Congress considered additional overarching mandates to analyze and base decisions about regulations and budgets on relative risks, opportunities for risk reduction, and costs of alternatives. However, the 104th Congress adjourned without agreeing on comprehensive legislation requiring risk assessments for major regulations or as a basis for budget requests. Instead, as the time to legislate grew short, Congress returned to its past practice of focusing on individual environmental statutes for reauthorization. Just before the session ended, Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments (P.L. 104-182) and the Food Quality Protection Act (P.L. 104-170). Both laws increase EPA's flexibility but also elevate the importance of relative risks and economic analysis in agency decisions. These Acts are discussed in more detail below.

The continued interest of Members in regulatory and budgetary reform in the final moments of the 104th Congress suggests that the 105th Congress may consider additional broad-ranging proposals. At the same time, successful enactment of major amendments to major environmental statutes late in 1996 may encourage Members to pursue similar statute-specific efforts, perhaps focussed on the Superfund law, Clean Air Act, or Clean Water Act. Committees with jurisdiction may be expected to hold oversight hearings to assess EPA compliance with the President's Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review and with new statutory requirements for economic and risk analyses of regulations affecting small businesses. In addition, EPA may be expected to report on the Administration's progress in reinventing EPA to streamline its operations and to identify alternative enforcement mechanisms available within the current statutory framework. (For further reading see CRS Report 96-949, Environmental Reauthorization and Regulatory Reform; from the 104th Congress to the 105th.)

Superfund: A Limited Reform Bill? <3>

The 104th Congress considered comprehensive Superfund reauthorization legislation. Two of the committees of jurisdiction, House Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works considered but did not approve legislation; a Commerce subcommittee did approved H.R. 2500. Formally known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Superfund law authorizes the federal government to clean up spills and other discharges of hazardous substances. Central to the debate in the 104th Congress was eliminating or scaling back the law's retroactive, strict, joint and several liability standard, an effort that faded after Congressional Budget Office studies showed the burden on the budget of liability repeal would be significant.

Nevertheless, there were two temporary and two permanent amendments to CERCLA. The temporary ones were in EPA's FY1996 appropriations bill, and one of them prohibited the addition of sites during FY1996 to the National Priorities List (NPL) unless the state governor requested it.<4> The other amendment restricted to 40 the number of toxicological profiles performed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Both expired September 30, 1996, but some states and Members want the practice of gubernatorial approval of new NPL sites continued.

The other two - permanent - amendments to the law were enacted as legislative language to major bills at the end of the second session. The Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996<5> amended CERCLA to protect lenders and fiduciaries from liability as long as they do not participate in the management of a facility contaminated with hazardous substances. Lenders at times have incurred liability after foreclosing on a contaminated property. This law details what actions a lender may take, which include activities related to his financial interest, and responding appropriately to the hazardous substance release. The new language applies to underground storage tanks (regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) as well as to Superfund sites.

The second amendment allows the transfer of federal property even if hazardous substance contamination remains at the site.<6> The numerous military base closures and realignments across the Nation have had adverse economic effects on some local communities, particularly through the loss of jobs. Current law permits only the non-contaminated portions of bases to be transferred while cleanup continues at the contaminated portions. The new amendment permits the transfer of the entire facility, provided that EPA and the governor of the state where the site is located make a finding that the site is suitable for the use intended by the new owner, the public has an opportunity to comment, and the deferral of cleanup and the transfer of property will not substantially delay any necessary response action at the property. The deed to the property must contain appropriate assurances, including that an approved timetable is met, and that the federal agency will submit an adequate budget request to the Office of Management and Budget to complete all necessary work. When cleanup is completed, the agency must provide the new owner a warranty to that effect.

In the 105th Congress, subcommittee staff say that work on a comprehensive Superfund reform bill will build on last Congress' efforts. There are news reports that the Administration is considering backing a narrow reauthorization bill that would avoid controversial issues. However, Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley spoke against this "Superfund lite" approach as recently as November 1996.<7> Mr. Bliley also said that Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer remained opposed to renewing the program's expired taxing authority until CERCLA's liability scheme was significantly reformed; tax collection ceased December 31, 1995.

The liability issue remains to be resolved. A possible approach, employed in last Congress' H.R. 2500, involves using an independent allocator who would apportion liability cost shares among the responsible parties, thereby sidestepping the litigation and delays that have brought so much criticism to the program in the past. Exemptions and/or liability limits for small businesses and municipalities would be a part of this.

Regarding cleanup standards, proposals in last Congress would have made current or currently planned uses of land and groundwater key factors in choosing remedies and setting goals for cleanup. They also would have used site-specific risk assessments, and allowed cleanups to meet a risk range, rather than a single numerical target. They gave the cost of cleanup a more prominent role in remedy selection, and eliminated the current law's preference for permanent cleanups (removal and destruction of waste) instead of containment.

State officials desire greater control over Superfund, with those states that are willing and qualified essentially assuming the whole program. However, a reliable funding source would be imperative to their cleanup efforts; hence, most states oppose changing the law's liability provisions. Another issue is the authority of governors to add sites to the NPL.

CERCLA makes polluters liable for injury to or loss of natural resources. A few very large sites with possible cleanup costs approaching a billion dollars have made this a sensitive political issue. At present, federal and state trustees for natural resources determine the dollar damages by following guidelines issued by the Interior Department, and their assessments have the force and effect of a rebuttable presumption in administrative and judicial proceedings. Business interests would like to bar all non-use damages, put a cap on monetary awards, and require new rules for determining the reasonable cost of restoration.

Reauthorizing the Clean Water Act <8>

In the 104th Congress, the House passed comprehensive amendments to the Clean Water Act, which was last amended in 1987. However, the House-passed bill was subsequently viewed as highly controversial because of changes it would have made to core water quality programs, and no legislation was enacted. In the 105th Congress, comprehensive legislation is again likely to be considered with key issues expected to including funding, regulatory reform in the Act, wetlands regulation, and management of nonpoint source pollution.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) 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. Originally enacted in 1948 and significantly revised in 1972 (P.L. 92-500), the Act was last amended in 1987 (P.L. 100-4). These amendments are now being implemented by states, cities, the federal government, and regulated industries. The CWA has been viewed as one of the Nation's most successful environmental laws in terms of achieving the statutory goals, which have been widely supported by interest groups and the public, but lately has been criticized over whether the benefits have been worth the costs.

In the 104th Congress, the CWA was one of the first environmental laws to receive congressional attention. A comprehensive reauthorization bill, H.R. 961, was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in April 1995 and passed the House in May. H.R. 961 reflected efforts to make the Act more flexible and less prescriptive and to address regulatory issues raised by industries, states, and cities, who had criticized what they view as excessive and prescriptive clean water regulation. The legislation was endorsed by industry, state, and local government groups, but was opposed by environmental groups and the Clinton Administration. Officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that the bill would undermine the existing framework for protecting U.S. waters.

Subsequently, many observers concluded that legislative efforts to reform clean water programs had generated controversy, not consensus. In the Senate, reauthorization legislation was not introduced, and no hearings on H.R. 961 were held; thus, no CWA amendments were enacted.

Prospects for enacting CWA legislation in the 105th Congress are uncertain, in part because the issues and controversies which were unresolved in the 104th Congress are likely to recur, and for now it is unclear how the returning and newly elected Members will approach them. All of the CWA issues likely to receive attention in the 105th Congress have been open for debate for several years, even before Republican majorities were elected to both Houses. What is at issue is how these issues are framed and whether proposed changes are seen as strengthening or weakening the law. It is unclear whether effort will be made in debating clean water issues to achieve greater consensus without the confrontation and controversy that characterized debate on H.R. 961.

One reason that the CWA may receive congressional attention is that authorizations for most current programs expired Sept. 30, 1990. If the 105th Congress does take up the Act, a number of specific issues which were debated in the 104th Congress are likely to be the core of clean water legislative activity. Among the issues likely to receive attention are funding; regulatory reform and cost-benefit analysis in the Act; regulation or protection of wetlands; and management of nonpoint source pollution. Also likely is oversight and possible legislation concerning initiatives at EPA that affect water quality programs.

Funding

The 1987 CWA amendments authorized $18 billion to aid construction of wastewater treatment facilities through FY1994 and established a new program of federal grants to capitalize State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds, or state loan programs (SRFs). The most recent survey by states and the EPA estimates that total national wastewater treatment funding needs are $137 billion to be spent over the next two decades. Thus, because remaining funding needs are still so large, at issue is how to extend SRF assistance to address those needs and modify the SRF program to aid priority projects. Of particular concern in the 105th Congress, as in the 104th, is how to assist small and economically disadvantaged communities that have had the most difficulty in adjusting from the Act's previous categorical grants program to loans.

Regulatory Reform

An issue raised often in recent legislative debates is concern over the cost to society and the economy of complying with environmental regulations. EPA has estimated that by the year 2000, U.S. investments for pollution control for all media could represent nearly 3% of Gross Domestic Product, a level that critics of regulation assert is excessive. Reducing the cost and burden of federal regulation has been a theme of regulatory reform legislation.

In debating the CWA in the 104th Congress, supporters of reform argued that policymakers and regulators need information based on sound scientific analyses of the potential risks to public health and the environment and need to be able to weigh the costs of CWA regulations against their benefits. Thus, H.R. 961 sought to insert greater consideration of cost in implementation of the law and sought to make risk assessment a much more prominent element of CWA decisionmaking. Critics said that risk assessment and risk management tools already are used by EPA, and the bill would impose on EPA a rigid decisionmaking process likely to postpone needed actions. Many observers believe that momentum for benefit-cost reform will continue in the 105th Congress. Early indications are that regulatory reform proponents will pursue statute-by-statute reform of the CWA and other environmental laws, rather than omnibus legislation.

Wetlands

How best to protect the Nation's remaining wetlands and regulate activities taking place in wetlands has become one of the most contentious environmental policy issues, especially in the context of the CWA which contains a key wetlands regulatory tool, the permit program in Section 404. It requires landowners or developers to obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out activities involving disposal of dredged or fill material into navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands. EPA provides environmental guidance on permitting and can veto a permit, based on environmental impacts. Controversy has grown over the extent of federal jurisdiction, burdens and delay of permit procedures, and roles of federal agencies and states in the permitting process.

Among recent proposals for amending Section 404, a number of issues have been raised, including: whether all wetlands should be treated the same or not and whether some could be accorded less stringent regulatory protection; whether activities or areas covered by federal regulation should be modified; and whether federal and state roles in implementing Section 404 should be revised. In the 104th Congress, House-passed H.R. 961 would have significantly amended Section 404. It contained several provisions that contributed greatly to controversy over and opposition to that bill. These included a requirement to compensate landowners if federal agency action under Section 404 diminishes the fair market value of property by 20% or more; and establishing a wetlands classification system with differential regulatory procedures and requiring no permits in areas classified as least ecologically valuable. These issues are expected to be revisited in the 105th Congress.

Nonpoint Source Pollution

Surveys by states and EPA report that polluted runoff from agriculture and city streets and storm sewers is the leading cause of water quality impairment in the United States. These nonpoint sources of water pollution, along with runoff from forestry and construction sites, land disposal activities, and atmospheric deposition of air pollution contaminants, are believed to contribute more than 50% of remaining water quality problems in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. The 1987 CWA amendments established the first comprehensive program in the Act to address nonpoint source pollution through state management programs utilizing technical and financial assistance from EPA. At issue is the adequacy of current efforts and whether and how to establish programs in the CWA with minimum standards to ensure that progress towards water quality goals continues to be made, while providing sufficient state and local flexibility and incentives for sources to manage polluted runoff.

Reinventing Government at EPA

EPA has been at the center of many of the Clinton Administration's efforts to reinvent government, to create a government that works better and costs less. At EPA, these activities include new flexible funding and regulatory arrangements for states and industries, proposals for alternative compliance strategies, and a great many program-specific initiatives affecting water quality and other program areas, as well. Congressional oversight of these activities is likely in the 105th Congress, in response to criticism from a wide range of interests that the initiatives are delivering far less than has been expected. Some in Congress may propose legislation - possibly in connection with CWA reauthorization - to provide a clear statutory basis for the initiatives and to clarify the scope and direction of EPA's government reinvention activities.

Clean Air Act <9>

The 104th Congress enacted four bills modifying provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and held numerous oversight hearings, as EPA and the states continued to implement requirements of the Act's 1990 Amendments. Substantial progress has been made in meeting the Act's objectives. More than half of the 98 areas that did not meet air quality standards for ozone in 1990 and two-thirds of the 42 areas with excessive carbon monoxide now meet national standards. Phase I of the acid precipitation control program has been implemented, reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants 40% more than required at a cost substantially below that predicted.

Nevertheless, implementing some of the Act's requirements has proven controversial. The 104th Congress acted to revise, delay, or rescind several specific provisions of the 1990 Act, notably those involving Employee Commute Option (ECO) programs and inspection and maintenance (I/M) requirements for auto emission control systems.

Employee Commute Option programs, required in the nine worst ozone regions, are programs designed to reduce automobile use by commuters. On December 23, 1995, the President signed P.L. 104-70, which allows states with such programs to remove the requirement if they establish alternative methods to achieve equivalent emission reductions. P.L. 104-19, signed earlier, had prevented EPA from using FY1995 funds to enforce ECO requirements.

Congress also acted to give more flexibility to 23 states required to implement enhanced auto emission inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. In P.L. 104-19 and 104-59, it prevented EPA from disapproving state I/M programs for failure to use IM240, a costly and controversial new test procedure.

The 104th Congress also passed legislation that would prevent EPA from implementing stringent pollution controls under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in California. Under court order, EPA had promulgated a FIP for three California regions on February 14, 1995. P.L. 104-6 rescinded the FIP, allowing California to continue development of its own State Implementation Plan, which was approved by EPA in September 1996.

Although the most controversial issues identified at the outset of the 104th Congress were addressed, the following issues have arisen.

Revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets national standards for air quality, and is directed to review the standards every 5 years. The Agency has not met the review schedules for ozone and particulates, and was sued by the American Lung Association and others over its failure to review the particulate standard. In a settlement agreement, the Agency agreed to review and, if necessary, propose new standards for ozone and fine particulates by November 1996, and to promulgate any changes to the standards by June 28, 1997.

On November 27, 1996, the Agency released a proposed new standard for fine particulates (referred to as PM2.5) and a new standard for ozone. Analyses by interested parties, including EPA, indicate that many areas now considered to have acceptable air quality will not meet the new standards. Under the proposed PM2.5 standard, for example, EPA estimates that 56% of U.S. counties will not meet the standard (vs. 12% under the current requirement). For ozone, the number of counties out of compliance under the proposed standard is estimated to triple.

An increase in the number of nonattainment areas and a new method of measuring air quality would have broad implications for EPA, the states, and affected industries. As currently written, the Act makes specific reference to the current ozone standard and requires progress in meeting it. If the standard changes, this structure becomes an anomaly, requiring measured progress toward a standard that no longer exists. Thus, major changes to the regulatory or legal structure could be required. Similarly, the adoption of a fine particulate standard would require a whole new system of monitoring, and the potential revision of regulations affecting numerous industries. The next Congress will almost certainly wish to review the implications of such new standards.

If it conducts this review, the Congress will have an important new tool. Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (P.L. 104-121), federal agencies promulgating major rules must submit to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General a copy of the rule and a cost-benefit analysis of it. Before the rule can take effect, the Congress is then given 60 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval, should it desire to do so, under procedures specified in the Act. The revised NAAQS may be among the most important early tests of this new congressional power.

The Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

A second issue that has already proven controversial is the requirement for inspection and maintenance of auto emission control systems. At least seven bills were introduced in the 104th Congress to repeal or modify these requirements, and two provisions (in P.L. 104-19 and P.L. 104-59) were enacted.

The Clean Air Act requires areas in 23 states to implement "enhanced" vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. The programs are designed to ensure that cars are properly maintained and that cars whose emission control systems are not functioning properly are detected and repaired.

In November 1992, EPA promulgated a performance standard for enhanced I/M program effectiveness that was based on a new test known as IM240. The IM240 test requires expensive new equipment that simulates actual driving conditions. Implementation of IM240 has proven troublesome. States have had problems with the reliability of the IM240 test. These problems have not been universal: both Colorado and Arizona have implemented IM240 without experiencing major difficulties. But there has been a great deal of negative publicity concerning various technical problems in implementing the test, leading many states to postpone or suspend implementation.

A second concern is that the new test would result in a higher failure rate, causing motorists to spend up to $450 in repairs. Under previous I/M programs, the limit before waivers would be granted was generally $75.

Compounding these problems has been EPA's requirement that vehicles be tested at centralized testing locations: test functions are to be separated from repair under IM240, to reduce the potential for fraud. The rule is expected to have a negative impact on garage owners in many states, who relied on emissions testing for a portion of their income and who may have already invested in existing testing equipment.

The 104th Congress passed two bills regarding the I/M requirements. The first, a rider attached to a supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 104-19), prevented EPA from using FY1995 funds to implement the IM240 requirement. The second, an amendment to the National Highway System Designation Act (P.L. 104-59), provided a longer-term approach. It prevents EPA from giving less credit to non-centralized programs. It requires that EPA grant interim approval to state programs different from that suggested by the Agency, accepting a state's proposed estimate of emission reductions, as long as they reflect good faith estimates. After an 18-month period, it requires that EPA grant final approval to a state program if data collected from operation of the program demonstrates that the proposed credits are appropriate.

Despite Congress' action, controversy has continued to plague state I/M programs, including the Nation's largest, Smog Check II, a hybrid program now being implemented by the state of California. California's program will rely to a large extent on the use of remote sensing devices to identify "gross polluters." Once identified, a gross polluter will be subject to IM240 and required to make needed repairs with no cap on potential expenditures. This program was developed by the state as an alternative to requiring IM240 for all autos in enhanced IM areas, but it appears to be no less controversial. Given the continued controversies in California and elsewhere, I/M programs are likely to be among the air act provisions of interest to the 105th Congress.

Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) and Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Requirements Under Title II of the Act

Twelve Northeastern states and the District of Columbia, acting as the Ozone Transport Commission, have chosen to adopt the more-stringent California standards for new motor vehicles, including market share requirements for ZEVs. The auto industry has responded by proposing that EPA promulgate a national LEV standard (or "49-state car" requirement) more stringent than that required by law, in place of the Northeast states adopting California standards. In October 1995, EPA proposed standards similar to the auto industry offer, but it is not clear whether the Agency has authority to do so. It is also unclear whether the Northeast states must adopt EPA's standards in place of their ZEV programs if the EPA proposal is promulgated. On November 18, 1996, EPA sent a final 49-state car rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review. The final rule establishes a framework for a voluntary 49-state LEV program, but does not address the question of whether the Northeast states can adopt ZEV requirements.

Regulating Sources of Nitrogen Oxides, A Contributor to the Formation of Ground-Level Ozone

Regulation is proceeding on three fronts, including Phase 2 of the acid rain program, New Source Performance Standards applicable to industrial and utility sources of the pollutants, and efforts by the Ozone Transport Commission to reduce ozone in the Northeastern states (for additional information on the New Source Performance Standards, see CRS Report 96-737, Nitrogen Oxides Emissions and Electric Utilities: Revising the NSPS).

Phase-Out of Production and Imports of Methyl Bromide, an Ozone-Depleting Pesticide

Under the Clean Air Act, phaseout of production and imports of methyl bromide is scheduled for January 1, 2001 -- substantially ahead of the international deadline (2010) set by the parties to the Montreal Protocol. Methyl Bromide is used as a fumigant for fruits. Affected interests have begun to promote legislation to delay the U.S. deadline. (For additional information, see CRS Report 96-959, Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: Methyl Bromide Control Measures, CRS Report 96-474, Methyl Bromide and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: New Direction for Regulation? and CRS Issue Brief 97003, Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: Implementation Issues.)

Solid Waste: Interstate Waste, Flow Control, and Managing Wastes? <10>

Reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the principal federal law governing solid and hazardous waste management, was not on the agenda of the 104th Congress, but several bills amending the act or otherwise addressing solid waste issues were enacted. H.R. 2036, which eases restrictions on land disposal of hazardous and solid waste, was signed into law March 26, 1996 (P.L. 104-119); H.R. 2024, a bill to encourage recycling of spent batteries by exempting recycling activities from hazardous waste management standards, was signed May 13, 1996 (P.L. 104-142); and S. 440, which, inter alia, removed federal requirements to use scrap tires in highway pavement, was signed November 28, 1995 (P.L. 104-59). Congress also extended a tax credit for projects recovering methane from landfills, in legislation signed August 20, 1996 (P.L. 104-188).

A similar pattern -- Congress addressing specific solid waste issues individually rather than attempting reauthorization of the basic statute -- may occur in the 105th Congress. Issues that might receive attention include interstate shipment of solid waste, "flow control," and the management of waste from remedial actions at hazardous waste cleanup sites.

Flow control and interstate shipment of waste were the dominant solid waste issues in the 104th Congress. Both issues surfaced as a result of federal court rulings. In a series of recent cases, federal courts (including the Supreme Court) have held that shipments of waste are protected under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. With few exceptions, a state may not prohibit waste shipments from out-of-state or impose fees on waste disposal that discriminate on the basis of origin, nor may it designate where privately collected waste must be disposed ("flow control"). These decisions have had a broad impact on state and local ability to plan the future management of solid waste and to finance existing waste management programs.

In overturning interstate waste and flow control laws, the courts have made clear that the Constitution does not prevent Congress itself from restricting commerce or from granting authority to states or local governments to do so. What is prohibited is state or local action in the absence of congressional authorization.

Since 1990, Congress has considered an array of proposals intended to provide such authority. In the last Congress, the Senate passed S. 534, a bill authorizing both interstate waste restrictions and flow control, early in the first session, but the House did not follow suit. Whether the 105th Congress will be more likely than the last to reach consensus on legislation is unclear, but there are continuing developments prompting congressional interest. Among these are court cases involving flow control in New Jersey and Minnesota, and New York City's decision in May 1996 to close its one remaining landfill, Fresh Kills, the largest landfill in the United States. This decision, to be implemented over several years, is likely to stimulate a substantial increase in interstate waste shipments.

Another RCRA issue widely discussed but not acted on in the 104th Congress concerned the management of waste from hazardous waste cleanup sites. The goal of the legislation would have been to speed cleanup of hazardous waste sites by exempting low-risk remediation waste from RCRA's hazardous waste management system. S. 1274 (Lott) and S. 1286 (Smith) contained such provisions, as did Title IX of H.R. 2500 (Oxley), the Superfund reform bill approved by a House Commerce subcommittee. Draft legislative language similar to these bills was the subject of further negotiations among interested parties, but the Congress adjourned without addressing the issue. As a result, this issue is expected to return for consideration in the 105th Congress, although it is unclear whether it will be considered as part of a renewed Superfund debate or as separate legislation amending RCRA.

Underground Storage Tanks <11>

The 105th Congress may consider legislation to increase flexibility and funding to states administering the leaking underground storage tank program. To address a nationwide problem of leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), Congress established a leak prevention and detection program through the 1984 amendments the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The law directed EPA to set operating requirements and technical standards for tank design and installation, leak detection, spill and overfill control, corrective action, and tank closure (RCRA, Subtitle I).

In 1986, Congress created a petroleum UST response program by amending Subtitle I of RCRA through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA, P.L. 99-499). The provisions authorized the federal government to respond to petroleum spills and leaks, and created a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to fund cleanup of leaks from petroleum USTs in cases where the UST owner or operator does not clean up a site. The LUST Trust Fund provides money for EPA, and states that have entered into cooperative agreements with EPA, to undertake corrective actions where no responsible party has been identified, where a responsible party fails to comply with a cleanup order, or in the event of an emergency. The money in the fund is derived primarily from a 0.1 cent-per-gallon federal tax on motor fuels and several other petroleum products.

The 1986 amendments also directed EPA to establish financial responsibility requirements for UST owners and operators to cover costs of taking corrective action and to compensate third parties for injury and property damage caused by leaking tanks. As required, EPA issued regulations requiring tank owners and operators selling petroleum products to demonstrate minimum financial responsibility of $1 million. Alternatively, owners and operators may rely on state assurance funds to demonstrate financial responsibility. At least 44 states have established financial assurance funds which supplement federal funding. Unlike the federal LUST Trust Fund, state funds are often used to reimburse solvent tank owners and operators for the costs of cleanups.

States are facing increased work loads at a time when many state trust funds have claims that exceed fund balances. In testimony before a subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee in July 1996, EPA estimated that states may identify 100,000 new UST releases as owners and operators upgrade tanks to comply with regulations that enter into force in 1998. States and industry are urging Congress to increase appropriations from the Trust Fund to enable states to respond to the growing oversight and enforcement demands of their already overburdened UST programs. Industry is also urging Congress to broaden the use of the federal Trust Fund.

Congressional Activity

According to the General Accounting Office, roughly $1.6 billion were collected for the LUST Trust Fund before the taxing authority expired in December 1995. However, Congress has appropriated only about one third of the funds available in the LUST Trust Fund for EPA and states to undertake corrective actions and enforce the UST program. For FY1996 and FY1997, Congress provided $45.8 million and $60 million, respectively. On average, EPA has allocated 85% of the LUST Trust Fund appropriation to states.

Late in the 104th Congress, the House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, held hearings on, and reported, H.R. 3391, the LUST Trust Fund Amendments Act of 1996 (H.Rept 104-822). The bill would have required EPA to distribute at least 85% of the amounts appropriated from the Trust Fund to states for undertaking corrective action and enforcement of the UST program. It also would have broadened the allowable uses of the fund to permit states to reimburse solvent owners or operators for the costs of corrective action as needed to avoid significantly impairing their ability to continue in business. On September 25, 1996, the House passed H.R. 3391, amended, by voice vote. The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EPA expressed concerns with the proposed changes to the UST program, and insufficient time remained for the Senate committee to evaluate the legislation. The 104th Congress ended without further action being taken. (See also congressional changes to lender liability discussed in this report under Superfund.)

Toxic Release Inventory Expansion <12>

The 105th Congress may be asked to consider legislation to curb EPA plans for promulgating and enforcing new chemical reporting requirements under the authority of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), enacted by Congress in 1986 as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. EPCRA, Section 313 directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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.

EPCRA requires facility owners or operators to file TRI reports if they: have 10 or more full-time employees, are in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 20 through 39 (which generally include all manufacturers), and use or process more than a threshold quantity of a listed chemical during the reporting year. The EPA Administrator is authorized by EPCRA to require release reports by facilities in other industrial categories, and to exempt categories of facilities from reporting requirements, consistent with the purposes of Section 313.

When first enacted, Section 313 required release reporting for 313 toxic chemicals. However, EPCRA allows EPA on its own initiative or in response to a petition by any person to revise this list by issuing a regulation. To date, EPA has removed about 17 and added approximately 346 chemicals to the original list.

EPCRA enumerated the following data reporting requirements for each covered chemical released or transferred:

• the maximum amount at each location during the previous year,
• treatment or disposal methods used, and
• amount released to the environment or transferred off-site for treatment or disposal.

In addition, EPCRA, Section 313(l) directed the Administrator to arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to study the value of collecting data to permit mass balance analysis of toxic chemicals manufactured, processed, or used by manufacturing facilities.<13> In 1990, Congress enacted the Pollution Prevention Act which required manufacturers and processors of toxic substances to include in their TRI annual reports additional information about source reduction and recycling.

On November 30, 1994, EPA added by rule 286 chemicals to the list of those for which releases must be reported (59 Federal Register 61432-61485).<14> EPA proposed another rule June 27, 1996, that would require seven additional industries to submit TRI reports: metal mining, coal mining, electric utilities, commercial hazardous waste treatment, petroleum bulk terminals, chemical wholesalers, and solvent recovery services. In addition, EPA proposed a new interpretation of the statutory language "otherwise use" that would include waste treatment for the purpose of destruction, stabilization, or disposal. On October 1, 1996, EPA published in the Federal Register an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing that it is considering TRI expansion to increase information collection on chemical use (61 Federal Register 51321). According to the announcement, EPA plans to consider all potential "materials accounting 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." The stated purpose of collecting additional chemical use information is to "provide a more detailed and comprehensive picture to the public about environmental performance and about toxic chemicals in communities." Public comments were solicited on the proposal and due December 31, 1996.

The 104th Congress considered proposals to prohibit use of EPA appropriations for expanding TRI reporting requirements. Other bills would have required EPA to document the risks posed by any chemical for which reporting is required. On the other hand, President Clinton issued an executive order and legislation was introduced to expedite EPA promulgation of chemical use reporting requirements for TRI chemicals. Polarized opinions and recent EPA regulatory activities may generate continued congressional interest in TRI expansion issues.

Funding Environmental Protection <15>

A perennial activity is the congressional consideration and passage of funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. In the 104th Congress, the adequacy of EPA's funding to continue regulatory and enforcement activities was a major congressional concern; the efficiency with which the Agency carries out its responsibilities was also a major appropriation issue. The 105th Congress will continue these concerns.

The 104th Congress considered and enacted two appropriation requests, FY1996 and FY1997. Considerable controversy arose, especially during consideration of FY1996 funding, involving the adequacy of funding. Overall, EPA has been funded at around a between $6 and $7 billion for the past several years. In approving funding for FY1996, the House passed a level below $6 billion which generated major congressional and public debate about the adequacy of EPA's resources to regulate and especially enforce environmental standards. At the same time, there was major congressional debate over the use of the appropriation process to direct EPA programs through legislative language or "riders" restricting various actions.

The House passed the FY1996 VA-HUD-Independent Appropriation Bill, H.R. 2099, on July 31, 1995; the Senate on September 27. The President proposed $7.4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY1996, 2% more than current year funding. House-passed H.R. 2099's level of $4.87 billion and the Senate-passed level of $5.7 billion would have reduced EPA funding considerably when compared to FY1995 year funding of $6.6 billion and the Administration's request of $7.4 billion. In addition, House-reported version contained many legislative riders, opposed by EPA, that would prohibit EPA from spending funds on various regulatory and enforcement activities. On November 2, 1995, the House voted to instruct the conferees to strike the House-passed riders; the conference committee did not include the House-passed riders and approved a level of $5.7 billion, slightly higher than the Senate-passed amount. On November 29, 1995, the House voted to recommit the conference version to the conference committee due to concerns about veterans' programs. On December 7, 1995, the House approved a second conference version; the Senate on December 14, 1995. Citing what he considers to be inadequate funding for EPA, the President vetoed this legislation on December 18, 1995.

In continuing funding measures, Congress funded EPA to April 1996 at roughly $5.7 billion. To fund EPA through the end of FY1996, the House approved $5.7 billion, the Senate $6.4 billion, in H.R. 3019. As approved by the conferees and signed April 26, 1996, by the President, P.L. 104-134 (H.R. 3019) funded the EPA at $6.5 billion for the remainder of FY1996, slightly less than the FY1995 level of $6.6 billion.

For FY1997, the President requested $7.0 billion for the EPA. On June 13, 1996, the House Committee on Appropriations approved in H.R. 3666 (H.Rept. 104-630) $6.6 billion for the EPA and an additional $861 million for Superfund if reauthorization is enacted. In passing H.R. 3666 on June 27, 1996, the House approved total funding of roughly $6.6 billion, but did not approve the contingency funds in the bill for Superfund. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has reported H.R. 3666, approving roughly the same amount as the House. Senate floor action followed on September 3 and 4, 1996 with the final conference approved September 25, 1996. The President signed H.R. 3666 as P.L. 104-204 on September 26, 1996. Congress enacted additional FY1997 appropriations in P.L. 104-208, for a total of $6.8 billion for FY1997.

P.L. 104-6 (H.R. 889), the Defense Rescission bill, signed April 10, 1995, rescinded the federal air quality implementation plan (FIP) for the South Coast, Ventura, and Sacramento areas of California. The vetoed FY1995 rescission bill, H.R. 1158, would have rescinded $1.5 billion in FY1995 EPA funds, required EPA to evaluate decentralized emissions test facilities on a case-by-case basis, and made state implementation of trip reduction programs voluntary. On July 27, 1995, the President signed P.L. 104-19 (H.R. 1944) another FY1995 rescission bill that rescinded $1.3 billion in EPA's FY1995 funds. This includes $1.074 billion from drinking water state revolving funds, $3.2 million from wastewater grants, $100 million from Superfund, $83 million from building funds, $9.8 million from abatement, and $14.6 million from research.

In reporting H.R. 1219 (H.Rept. 104-89), the Discretionary Spending Reduction and Control Act, the House Committee on the Budget included several environmental program reductions to achieve savings over 5 years, including: terminating the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI) and applying cost-benefit analysis to Superfund projects. The House-approved H.Con.Res. 67, the FY1996 Budget Resolution, includes several assumptions concerning EPA programs: termination of the Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI), application of cost-benefit to Superfund projects, and funding future R&D and abatement programs at levels reflecting the earlier, vetoed, FY1995 rescission bill (H.R. 1158). (For further information, see CRS Issue Brief 96028, Environmental Protection Agency: FY1997 Funding.)

Safe Drinking Water Act: Overseeing Implementation <16>

With P.L. 104-182, the 104th Congress reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and extended authorizations for appropriations under the Act through FY2003. The 1996 Amendments made sweeping changes to SDWA to focus resources on contaminants that pose the greatest health risks, to provide funding for federal drinking water mandates, and to improve the compliance capacity of public water systems. This bipartisan legislation gained the support of state and local governments, EPA, the water supply industry and various environmental groups.

The 105th Congress will continue to give attention to SDWA issues as appropriations committees determine funding levels for new and ongoing drinking water programs. Congressional oversight of EPA implementation of the 1996 Amendments may also be on the agenda.

Background

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j) is the key federal law for protecting public water systems from harmful contaminants. First enacted in 1974, the Act, as amended, is administered through regulatory programs that establish standards and treatment requirements for drinking water, control underground injection of wastes that might contaminate water supplies, and protect ground water. The law permits each of these activities to be implemented by the states.

The first major SDWA amendments, enacted in 1986 (P.L. 99-339), sought to increase the pace at which EPA developed drinking water standards. A key provision required EPA to issue regulations for 83 drinking water contaminants by June 1989, and for 25 additional contaminants every 3 years thereafter. The provision did increase EPA's regulatory pace, but the Act became widely criticized for failing to give EPA flexibility to focus on contaminants of greatest concern and for imposing an unmanageable regulatory schedule on EPA, states, and public water systems. Moreover, implementation of the 1986 Amendments brought to the fore general dissatisfaction with the SDWA among states and communities (including broader concerns involving regulatory flexibility, unfunded mandates, and cost-benefit analysis in standard setting).

In the 104th Congress, the House Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee made SDWA reauthorization a priority. The Senate held hearings and unanimously passed S. 1316 in November 1995. The House Commerce Committee, after months of bipartisan discussions, unanimously approved its bill, H.R. 3604, on June 11, 1996. The House passed H.R. 3604 under suspension on June 25. Reflecting jurisdictional issues, the Manager's Amendment added two titles to the reported version of H.R. 3604; one authorized additional SDWA research funding and coordination, and the second included provisions from H.R. 2747 (authorizing additional assistance for water infrastructure and watershed projects) which had been reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Senate and House passed the conference report (H.Rept. 104-741, S. 1316) on August 2 by votes of 98-0 and 392-30, respectively. President Clinton signed the legislation on August 6.

P.L. 104-182 addresses many of the SDWA issues that arose during the reauthorization debate. Among other provisions, it revokes the requirement that EPA regulate 25 contaminants every three years, adds some flexibility to the Act's standard setting process, directs EPA to conduct risk reduction and cost analyses for most new standards, and authorizes a state revolving loan fund (SRF) program to help public water systems finance projects needed to meet SDWA requirements. The law also increases health effects research funding, expands consumer information requirements, and includes programs for source water protection, technical assistance, operator training, and compliance capacity building. (For more information, see CRS Report 96-722, Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996: Overview of P.L. 104-182.)

Regulating Pesticides <17>

On August 3, 1996, the President signed P.L. 104-170 (H.R. 1627) amending the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food and Drug Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Although this legislation did not reauthorize FIFRA, it did resolve pressing concerns about pesticide policy, so that reauthorizing legislation is not expected to be a priority in the 105th Congress. Instead, the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry may be expected to monitor EPA's progress in registering pesticides, especially for minor uses; the same Senate committee and the House Committee on Commerce may actively oversee EPA efforts to define "safe" pesticide residues under a revised FFDCA tolerance-setting scheme for potentially carcinogenic pesticides.

Chemical pesticides provide substantial benefits to the public in terms of improved quantity, quality, and variety of foods as well as human disease prevention, but many also are potentially harmful to nontarget species and human health. The toxic nature of most pesticides has resulted in their being subject to intense scrutiny and regulation.

EPA regulates the use of pesticides under authority of FIFRA. The regulatory framework created by FIFRA includes: evaluating the risks of each pesticide during a process of registration and reregistration; classifying and approving pesticides for only specific uses to control exposure; restricting or canceling the use of pesticides that pose high risks; and enforcing regulations through labeling of products, recordkeeping and inspection of facilities, and applicator certification. In addition to regulating pesticide use, EPA sets allowable pesticide residue levels in food and animal feed (tolerances) under authority of the FFDCA. These are enforced through food sampling by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture.

A key policy issue in the 104th Congress was where to balance the risks to consumers and the environment due to pesticide use on the one hand and the benefits pesticides provide in terms of abundance, variety, and affordability of the food supply on the other. This issue was central in the debate about the Delaney clause in FFDCA, Section 409, and its prohibition on cancer-causing pesticide residues in processed food. Both EPA and the agricultural chemical industry considered revision of the Delaney clause a high priority for the 104th Congress. Other pesticide and/or FIFRA-related issues debated in the 104th Congress included: availability of funds to reregister pesticides; adequate protection of children from pesticide residues in food; federal preemption of local pesticide use and of state and local food safety regulations; and, expedited registration of pesticides for minor, public health and other special uses.

On July 11, 1996, the House Committee on Agriculture reported the Food Quality Protection Act, H.R. 1627; the House Commerce Committee reported it on July 23, 1996; and, House passage occurred on July 23. The Senate Agriculture Committee approved it and the full Senate passed it on July 24, clearing it for the President, who signed it August 3, 1996. P.L. 104-170 (H.R. 1627) amends FIFRA to fine tune EPA's procedures for pesticide registration and suspension, to reduce the regulatory burden for minor-use, reduced-risk, public health and other special groups of pesticides and to extend EPA authority to collect fees to fund reregistration. P.L. 104-170 also amends FFDCA to improve data collection on food consumption of infants and children and on pesticide use on foods of dietary significance to children; to prohibit states from regulating pesticide residues in food at a level other than the federal tolerance level (unless a petition is granted); to establish "safe" tolerances for pesticide residues in food (thus, in effect, freeing residues of pesticides that may increase cancer risks from regulation under the Delaney clause); and to conduct research, demonstration and education programs to support adoption of integrated pest management so as to minimize economic, health, and environmental risks.

International Environment <18>

Extensive activity will continue internationally pursuant to several major treaties on global environmental issues, such as the Convention on Climate Change, the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, and others; in addition, the United Nations will conduct a 5-year review of actions taken to carry out recommendations of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and a Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly is scheduled in June to consider the outcome of that review. Congressional oversight on some of these meetings and related issues is likely, particularly on climate change meetings on possible binding targets for limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Several treaties on major environmental issues are pending before the Senate, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, a Desertification treaty, and the Law of the Sea; the U.S.-ratified Basel Convention on transport of hazardous waste is awaiting enactment of implementing legislation. However, it is unlikely that these issues would be the subject of early action by the 105th Congress.

Appendix

Environmental Protection Legislation of the 104th Congress

(enacted, passed, or approved)

Endnotes

<1> Prepared by David Bearden, Environmental Information Analyst.

<2> Prepared by Linda Schierow, Specialist in Environmental Policy.

<3> Prepared by Mark Reisch, Analyst in Environmental Policy.

<4> VA-HUD Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, P.L. 104-134.

<5> Public Law 104-208, the Omnibus Appropriation Act of 1996. The language of the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act is found in division A, title II, subtitle E.

<6> This amendment appears at section 334 of the Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law 104-201.

<7> "Superfund Report Exclusive Interview: Commerce Committee Chairman," Superfund Report, November 13, 1996, p. 28.

<8> Prepared by Claudia Copeland, Senior Analyst in Environmental Policy.

<9> Prepared by James McCarthy, Senior Analyst in Environmental Policy.

<10> Prepared by James McCarthy, Senior Analyst in Environmental Policy.

<11> Prepared by Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy.

<12> Prepared by Linda Schierow, Specialist in Environmental Policy.

<13> Congress defined "mass balance" to include quantities of chemicals transported to, produced, consumed, used, or accumulated at, or released or transported from a facility, including any toxic chemical in waste, commercial products or byproducts.

<14> Several industrial groups challenged the November 1994 rulemaking, but the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in EPA's favor (Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Browner, DC DC, No. 95-1673; Troy Corp. V. Browner, DC DC, No. 95-980; National Oilseed Processors Association, DC DC, No. 95-1673; NMP Producers Group v. Browner, DC DC, No. 95-1910, Apr. 30, 1996).

<15> Prepared by Martin R. Lee, Specialist in Environmental Policy.

<16> Prepared by Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy.

<17> Prepared by Linda Schierow, Specialist in Environmental Policy.

<18> Prepared by Susan Fletcher, Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy.