James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
As Congress and the Administration considered new legislation to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change over the last year and a half (a process that has now stalled), the Environmental Protection Agency simultaneously began to exercise its existing authority under the Clean Air Act to set standards for GHG emissions. The Administration has made clear that its preference would be for Congress to address the climate issue through new legislation. Nevertheless, it is moving forward on several fronts to define how the Clean Air Act will be used and to promulgate regulations.
On April 1, 2010, EPA used existing authority under Section 202 of the act to set the first national GHG emission standards: the standards will control emissions from new cars and light trucks beginning in model year 2012. The standards will require cars, SUVs, minivans, and other light trucks to meet combined emissions levels that the agency estimates will average 250 grams/mile of carbon dioxide (CO2) in model year 2016, about a 30% reduction in emissions compared to current levels. The standards will be gradually phased in, with the first reduction targets set for model year 2012. As part of an agreement brokered by the White House, EPA’s standards were issued jointly with fuel economy (CAFE) standards developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the state of California agreed to harmonize state-level GHG emission standards, so that the auto industry would have a single national set of standards to meet.
The key to using the Clean Air Act’s authority to control greenhouse gases was for the EPA Administrator to find that GHG emissions are air pollutants that endanger public health or welfare. Administrator Jackson promulgated such an endangerment finding in December 2009. With the endangerment finding finalized, the agency can proceed to regulate emissions from motor vehicles of all kinds. Medium- and heavy-duty trucks are next in line: EPA proposed GHG emission standards for them October 25, 2010.
EPA has received 11 petitions asking that it make endangerment findings and proceed to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. Ten of the 11 petitions address mobile sources: besides motor vehicles, the petitions cover aircraft, ships, nonroad vehicles and engines, locomotives, and fuels, all of which are covered by Title II of the Clean Air Act. In addition to describing the motor vehicle regulations, this report discusses the range of EPA’s authority under Title II and provides information regarding other mobile sources that might be regulated under this authority.
Regulation of GHGs from mobile sources will lead the agency to establish controls for stationary sources, such as electric power plants, as well. Stationary source options, the authority for which comes from different parts of the Clean Air Act, are addressed in CRS Report R40585, Climate Change: Potential Regulation of Stationary Greenhouse Gas Sources Under the Clean Air Act and CRS Report R41212, EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: Congressional Responses and Options.
Date of Report: November 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R40506
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Linda-Jo Schierow
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Sarah A. Lister
Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology
Bisphenol A (BPA) is used to produce certain types of plastic, in thousands of formulations for myriad products. Containers made with these plastics may expose people to small amounts of BPA in food and water. Medical devices and other more ubiquitous products, such as thermal paper coatings, also may contribute significantly to human exposure. Some animal experiments have found that fetal and infant development may be harmed by small amounts of BPA, but scientists disagree about the amount of BPA that is likely to harm human health.
In the United States and elsewhere, scientific disagreement about the possibility of human health effects that may result from BPA exposure has led to conflicting regulatory decisions regarding the safety of food containers, especially those intended for use by infants and children. In the United States, a conclusion by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that BPA use is safe conflicted with earlier findings by one panel of scientific advisors, and was later challenged by a second panel. These events prompted some to question FDA’s process for the assessment of health risks such as this, and others to question the agency’s fundamental ability to conduct such assessments competently. Recently, FDA expressed concern about possible health effects from BPA exposure and announced that it was conducting new studies on the matter, pending possible changes in its regulatory approach.
In March 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a “chemical action plan” for BPA that proposes to list BPA as a chemical of concern that may present an unreasonable risk to certain aquatic species at concentrations similar to those found in the environment, to consider rulemaking to gather additional data relevant to environmental effects, and to initiate collaborative alternatives assessment activities under its Design for the Environment (DfE) program to encourage reductions in BPA releases and exposures.
Some food companies, bottle manufacturers, and paper receipt producers have voluntarily changed to BPA-free products. It is reported that some companies are exploring alternatives to BPA-containing food cans. However, others have said that for some types of canned foods, alternatives that preserve the safety and quality of the food currently may not be available.
In the 111th Congress, companion bills (S. 593/H.R. 1523) have been introduced that would prohibit the use of BPA in food and beverage containers regulated by the FDA. The Senate bill, or a modification of it, may be proposed as an amendment to pending food safety legislation (S. 510). A different approach to BPA regulation would be taken by a second pair of bills (S. 753/H.R. 4456) that would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to prohibit BPA use in children’s food and beverage containers under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The House acted July 30, 2009, on a third approach when it approved H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. Section 215 of the bill would require FDA to determine whether there was “a reasonable certainty of no harm for infants, young children, pregnant women, and adults, for approved uses of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resin made with bisphenol A in food and beverage containers ... under the conditions of use prescribed in current [FDA] regulations.” FDA would be required to notify Congress about any uses of BPA for which such a determination could not be made and the agency’s plan to regulate the chemical to protect the public health. A fourth bill, H.R. 4341, would require a warning label on any food container containing BPA. Finally, H.R. 5820 would place BPA on a priority list of chemicals for which EPA must assess safety, authorize specific uses, and impose conditions to ensure protection of the public with a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from exposure.
Date of Report: November 3, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS22869
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Jonathan L. Ramseur
Specialist in Environmental Policy
This report summarizes provisions of selected legislation—enacted and proposed—that addresses oil spill policy issues raised after the April 20, 2010, explosion and resulting oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico.
The 2010 Gulf oil spill has generated considerable interest in oil spill issues. The House of Representatives has conducted at least 33 hearings in 10 committees. The Senate has conducted at least 30 hearings in eight committees. Members have introduced over 150 legislative proposals that have included one or more provisions that would affect oil spill policy.
As of the date of this report, President Obama has signed three bills into law that include oil spill provisions. Provisions in these bills are generally short-term matters that will not have a lasting impact on oil spill governance. However, H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, which the President signed October 15, 2010 (P.L. 111-281), includes more substantial changes.
In addition to the enacted legislation, the House has passed several bills, including H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act (CLEAR Act), that include multiple oil spill policy provisions. The Senate has comparable bills on its Legislative Calendar, but has not voted on their passage.
This report focuses primarily on oil spill policy matters that concern prevention, preparedness, response, and the liability and compensation framework. For the most part, the underlying statutes for these provisions are found in either the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-380; 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) or the Clean Water Act and its amendments (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). In general, this report does not address legislation that would alter the organizational structure of the former Minerals Management Service (MMS) or legislation that would affect the offshore leasing process.
Date of Report: November 3, 2010
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R41453
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Linda-Jo Schierow
Specialist in Environmental Policy
This report summarizes the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the major regulatory programs that mandate reporting by industrial facilities of releases of hazardous chemicals to the environment, as well as local planning to respond in the event of significant, accidental releases. The text is excerpted, with minor modifications, from the corresponding chapter of CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by David M. Bearden, which summarizes major environmental statutes.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S.C. 11001-11050) was enacted in 1986 as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (P.L. 99-499). In Subtitle A, EPCRA established a national framework for EPA to mobilize local government officials, businesses, and other citizens to plan ahead for chemical accidents in their communities. EPCRA required each state to create a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), to designate emergency planning districts, and to establish local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) for each district. EPA is required to list extremely hazardous substances, and to establish threshold planning quantities for each substance. The law directs each facility to notify the LEPC for its district if it stores or uses any “extremely hazardous substance” in excess of its threshold planning quantity. LEPCs are to work with such facilities to develop response procedures, evacuation plans, and training programs for people who will be the first to respond in the event of an accident. EPCRA requires that facilities immediately report a sudden release of any hazardous substance that exceeds the reportable quantity to appropriate state, local, and federal officials.
Subtitle B directs covered facilities annually to submit information about the chemicals that they have present to the LEPC, SERC, and local fire department. In addition, manufacturers and other facilities designated by EPA must estimate and report to EPA annually on releases from their facilities of certain toxic chemicals to the land, air, or water. EPA must compile that data into a computerized database, known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Generally, all information about chemicals that is required to be reported to LEPCs, SERCs, or EPA is made available to the general public, but EPCRA authorizes reporting facilities to withhold the identity of a chemical if it is a trade secret. Citizens are given the authority to bring civil action against a facility, EPA, a governor, or an SERC for failure to implement EPCRA requirements. .
Date of Report: October 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RL32683
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
Congressional action to designate funds within appropriations legislation for specified projects or locations has been increasing in recent years as a way to help communities meet needs to build and upgrade water infrastructure systems, whose estimated future funding needs exceed $630 billion. Such legislative action has often been popularly referred to as earmarking. This report discusses appropriations for water infrastructure programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), focusing on such designations in the account that funds these programs. Information on the programmatic history of EPA involvement in assisting wastewater treatment and drinking water projects is provided in two appendixes.
Congressional appropriators began the practice of supplementing appropriations for the primary Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) assistance programs with grants for individually designated projects in FY1989. These designated project grants are often referred to as earmarks or as STAG grants. Since 1989, of the $56.8 billion appropriated to EPA for water infrastructure assistance, more than 13% ($7.4 billion) has gone to designated project grants. Notably since FY2000, appropriators have awarded such grants to a larger total number of projects, resulting in more communities receiving such assistance, but at the same time receiving smaller amounts of funds, on average.
Members of Congress may intervene to provide funding for a specific community for a number of reasons. In some cases the community may have been unsuccessful in getting state approval to fund the project under other programs. Some, especially small and rural communities, seek a grant because the cost of a project financed through a state loan which must be fully repaid is deemed unacceptably high (loans are the primary assistance under the CWA and SDWA). However, this congressional practice has been criticized by state water program managers and administrators of infrastructure financing programs because designated projects are receiving more favorable treatment (55% federal grants, rather than loans) and because the practice sidesteps the standard process of states’ determining the priority by which projects will receive funding. Projects so funded through appropriations acts also have generally not been reviewed by congressional authorizing committees.
Attention is often drawn to the relatively few projects that have received large special project grants (more than $100 million), especially over multiple years. The majority of designated projects, however, receive comparatively small amounts. More than 75% of the projects designated in the EPA appropriations legislation have received total awards (either in a single year or over multiple years) of $2 million or less. While some Members of Congress, interest groups, and Administration officials are critical of these types of congressional actions, it is likely that communities will continue to seek this type of assistance, and there is little indication that the practice will cease.
Date of Report: October 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL32201
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
