Homeland Security Digital Library

Homeland Security Digital Library

SEARCH THE HSDL

Advanced search Help

Searching for terms: EXACT: "Schierow, Linda-Jo" in: author

Set an Alert to get future results

Results 1 - 30 (of 58) sorted by relevance sort by date

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements [Updated February 25, 2020]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "This report summarizes the Clean Air Act and its major regulatory requirements. The principal statute addressing air quality concerns, the Clean Air Act was first enacted in 1955, with major revisions in 1970, 1977, and 1990. [...] This report describes the act's major provisions and provides tables listing all major amendments, with the year of enactment and Public Law number, and cross-referencing sections of the act with the major U.S. Code sections of the codified statute."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Shouse, Kate C.; Lattanzio, Richard K.; McCarthy, James E. . . .

2020-02-25
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges [Updated November 2, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)of 1976 has never been amended, but recent legal, scientific, and technological changes are prompting some policy makers to reexamine the law. […]. Recent changes in science and technology pose challenges to EPA implementation of TSCA. For example, scientists now know that the timing and duration of exposure to a chemical can determine its effects, as can the age, gender, and heritable traits of people who are exposed. Biotechnology and nanotechnology have created genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and nanomaterials, respectively, which EPA must categorize as 'existing' or 'new' and manage as 'chemical substances' under TSCA. Faced with these challenges to TSCA, some analysts, and most in the regulated community, nevertheless believe that TSCA has performed as intended, and they support TSCA in its current form. They praise TSCA as a flexible, efficient, and effective limit to over-regulation. Other legal commentators and analysts want to amend TSCA, because they think that it has not accomplished the tasks laid out for it by Congress, and is unlikely to do better in the future."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2007-11-02
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements [July 29, 2011]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report summarizes the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the major regulatory programs dealing with chemical production and distribution in U.S. commerce. The text is excerpted, with minor modifications, from the corresponding chapter of CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by David M. Bearden, which summarizes more than a dozen environmental statutes. Issues related to TSCA implementation are addressed in CRS Report RL34118, The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges, by Linda-Jo Schierow. […] However, TSCA directs EPA to use the least burdensome option that can reduce risk to a level that is reasonable, given the benefits provided by the chemical product or process. Title I of the original statute establishes the core program, directs EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to control risks from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and bans certain activities with respect to elemental mercury. Title II directs EPA to set standards for asbestos mitigation in schools and requires asbestos contractors to be trained and certified. Title III directs EPA to provide technical assistance to states that choose to support radon monitoring and control. Title IV provides similar assistance with respect to abatement of lead-based paint hazards. Title V addresses environmental issues at schools, including energy efficiency. Finally, Title VI directs EPA to set standards for emissions of formaldehyde from composite wood products."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2011-07-29
Toxic Substances Control Act: A Summary of the Act and its Major Requirements [Updated January 7, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report summarizes the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the major regulatory programs dealing with chemical production and distribution in U.S. commerce. The text is excerpted, with minor modifications, from the corresponding chapter of CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by Susan Fletcher, which summarizes more than a dozen environmental statutes. Issues related to TSCA implementation are addressed in CRS Report RL34118, The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges, by Linda-Jo Schierow… TSCA authorizes EPA to identify potentially dangerous chemicals in U.S. commerce that should be subject to federal control. The act authorizes EPA to gather and disseminate information about production, use, and possible adverse effects to human health and the environment of existing chemicals, and to issue "test rules" that require manufacturers and processors of potentially dangerous chemicals to conduct and report the results of scientific studies to fill information gaps. For chemicals new to U.S. commerce, TSCA requires pre-market screening and regulatory tracking of new chemical products."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2008-01-07
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements [Updated November 18, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report summarizes the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the major regulatory programs dealing with chemical production and distribution in U.S. commerce. The text is excerpted, with minor modifications, from the corresponding chapter of CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which summarizes more than a dozen environmental statutes. [...]. The President's Council on Environmental Quality proposed comprehensive federal legislation in 1971 to identify and control potentially dangerous chemicals in U.S. commerce that were not adequately regulated under other environmental statutes. President Ford signed TSCA into law on October 11, 1976. Subsequently, four titles were added to address specific concerns -- asbestos in 1986 (Title II, P.L. 99-519), radon in 1988 (Title III, P.L. 100-551), lead in 1992 (Title IV, P.L. 102- 550), and, in 2007, environmental and energy issues in schools (Title V, P.L. 110- 140). In 2008, Congress added a provision to Title I, Section 6, banning certain activities with respect to elemental mercury. TSCA authorizes EPA to identify potentially dangerous chemicals in U.S. commerce that should be subject to federal control. The act authorizes EPA to gather and disseminate information about production, use, and possible adverse effects to human health and the environment of existing chemicals, and to issue 'test rules' that require manufacturers and processors of potentially dangerous chemicals to conduct and report the results of scientific studies to fill information gaps. For chemicals new to U.S. commerce, TSCA requires pre-market screening and regulatory tracking of new chemical products."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2008-11-18
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges [August 3, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 has never been amended, but recent legal, scientific, and technological changes are prompting some policy makers to reexamine the law. TSCA regulates potential risks of industrial chemicals in U.S. commerce, based on three policies: (1) Chemical manufacturers and processors are responsible for testing chemicals to determine their potential effects on health and the environment; (2) EPA should regulate chemicals that present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment; and (3) EPA's implementation of the law should not 'impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation.' […] To date, EPA has compiled an inventory of roughly 82,000 chemicals that have been produced in, or imported into, the United States at some time since 1976. […] Recent changes in science and technology pose challenges to EPA implementation of TSCA. For example, scientists now know that the timing and duration of exposure to a chemical can determine its effects, as can the age, gender, and heritable traits of people who are exposed. New technologies have created bioengineered plants, microbes, and nanoparticles, which EPA must categorize as 'existing' or 'new' and manage as 'chemical substances' under TSCA. Faced with these challenges to TSCA, some analysts, and most in the regulated community, nevertheless believe that TSCA has performed as intended, and they support TSCA in its current form. They praise TSCA as a flexible, efficient, and effective limit to over-regulation. Other legal commentators and analysts want to amend TSCA, because they think that it has not accomplished the tasks laid out for it by Congress, and is unlikely to do better in the future."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2007-08-03
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges [Updated July 18, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
This CRS report discusses the implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act, as well as the new challenges associated with it. "Title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)of 1976 has never been amended, but recent legal, scientific, and technological changes are prompting some policy makers to reexamine the law. […]. Recent changes in science and technology pose challenges to EPA implementation of TSCA. For example, scientists now know that the timing and duration of exposure to a chemical can determine its effects, as can the age, gender, and heritable traits of people who are exposed. Biotechnology and nanotechnology have created genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and nanomaterials, respectively, which EPA must categorize as 'existing' or 'new' and manage as 'chemical substances' under TSCA. Faced with these challenges to TSCA, some analysts, and most in the regulated community, nevertheless believe that TSCA has performed as intended, and they support TSCA in its current form. They praise TSCA as a flexible, efficient, and effective limit to over-regulation. Other legal commentators and analysts want to amend TSCA, because they think that it has not accomplished the tasks laid out for it by Congress, and is unlikely to do better in the future."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2007-07-18
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report summarizes the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the major regulatory programs dealing with chemical production and distribution in U.S. commerce. […] The President's Council on Environmental Quality proposed comprehensive federal legislation in 1971 to identify and control potentially dangerous chemicals in U.S. commerce that were not adequately regulated under other environmental statutes. President Ford signed TSCA into law on October 11, 1976. […] TSCA authorizes EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to identify potentially dangerous chemicals in U.S. commerce that should be subject to federal control. The act authorizes EPA to gather and disseminate information about production, use, and possible adverse effects to human health and the environment of existing chemicals, and to issue 'test rules' that require manufacturers and processors of potentially dangerous chemicals to conduct and report the results of scientific studies to fill information gaps. For chemicals new to U.S. commerce, TSCA requires pre-market screening and regulatory tracking of new chemical products."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2013-04-01
Regulation of Fertilizers: Ammonium Nitrate and Anhydrous Ammonia [May 14, 2013]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The explosion on April 17, 2013, at the West Fertilizer Company fertilizer distribution facility in West, TX, has led to questions about the oversight and regulation of agricultural fertilizer. Facilities holding chemicals must comply with regulations attempting to ensure occupational safety, environmental protection, and homeland security. In addition to federal regulation requiring reporting and planning for ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia, most state and some local governments have laws and regulations regarding the handling of either or both of these chemicals. The West Fertilizer Company possessed a variety of agricultural chemicals at its retail facility, but policy interest has focused on two chemicals: ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia. Ammonium nitrate is a solid that is primarily used as a fertilizer whose use generally occurs without incident. In combination with a fuel source and certain conditions, such as added heat or shock, confinement, or contamination, ammonium nitrate can pose an explosion hazard. Such accidents have rarely occurred, but have historically had high impacts. For example, the ammonium nitrate explosion in 1947 in Texas City, TX, where two ships carrying ammonium nitrate caught fire and exploded, destroyed the entire dock area, including numerous oil tanks, dwellings, and business buildings. The bomb used in 1995 to attack the Murrah Federal Building contained ammonium nitrate as a component of its explosives."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Shea, Dana A.; Schierow, Linda-Jo; Szymendera, Scott

2013-05-14
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency [Updated February 28, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The authorities and responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) derive primarily from a dozen major environmental statutes. This report, updated at the beginning of each Congress, provides a brief summary of EPA's present major authorities and responsibilities. It abstracts EPA-administered statutes, with each chapter providing a discrete analysis. It also explains how each act is structured, defines key terms, and reports the current authorization status of each act. The overall strategy of pollution control and the major programs authorized by each act are discussed. At the beginning of each chapter is a list of all major amendments to the parent statute, while the final table in each chapter cites the major 'U.S. Code' sections of the codified statute, offering ready reference to the codified sections. Table 1 shows the current status of statutory authorizations for appropriations. While these summaries outline the major provisions of each statute, they necessarily omit many details and secondary provisions, and even some major components are only briefly mentioned. Moreover, this report describes the statutes without discussing their implementation. For example, statutory deadlines to control pollutant discharges and achieve particular mandates have often been missed as a result of delayed standard setting by EPA. Other CRS [Congressional Research Service] reports discuss current developments and analyze implementation and associated regulations for many of the individual laws covered in this report."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Fletcher, Susan R.; Copeland, Claudia; Luther, Linda G. . . .

2007-02-28
Federal Regulation of Chemicals in Commerce: An Overview of Issues for the 113th Congress [May 30, 2013]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The useful properties of thousands of chemicals provide a wide range of benefits to American consumers and bolster the U.S. economy. These benefits occasionally come with a price, however, as exposure to certain substances, such as lead, pesticides, or asbestos, may lead to adverse effects on human health or the environment. Congress has enacted various laws to manage chemical risks associated with chemical use in industrial processes and production, agricultural practices, and residences and consumer products. Concerns about the effects of chemicals, as well as regulation of chemicals by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), continue to emerge, prompting additional congressional consideration. This report briefly describes selected legislative issues related to chemical production, processing, distribution, and use (including past use)--activities that generally are regulated under chemical laws implemented by EPA. Such laws generally target different, often overlapping, sets of chemicals, depending on how they are used or how people might be exposed."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2013-05-30
Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress [Updated August 21, 2006]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Environmental protection concerns span a wide variety of issues, including clean air, water quality, chemical security, and environmental aspects of other major issue areas, such as energy, transportation, disaster relief and cleanup, and defense. This report provides an overview of key environmental issues receiving attention in the 109th Congress. A number of environmental measures have been the subject of congressional activity, some of them as part of comprehensive bills and laws on broader subjects such as energy and transportation. On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6), the Energy Policy Act of 2005, an omnibus energy package that contains numerous environmentally related provisions. Perhaps the most important include a renewable fuel standard and streamlined environmental permitting. On August 10, 2005, the President signed the transportation reauthorization bill, P.L. 109-59. This law, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), contains various environmental provisions."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Fletcher, Susan R.; Isler, Margaret; Bearden, David M. . . .

2006-08-21
Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress [June 23, 2006]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Environmental protection concerns span a wide variety of issues, including clean air, water quality, chemical security, and environmental aspects of other major issue areas, such as energy, transportation, disaster relief and cleanup, and defense. This report provides an overview of key environmental issues receiving attention in the 109th Congress. A number of environmental measures have been the subject of congressional activity, some of them as part of comprehensive bills and laws on broader subjects such as energy and transportation. On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6), the Energy Policy Act of 2005, an omnibus energy package that contains numerous environmentally related provisions. Perhaps the most important include a renewable fuel standard and streamlined environmental permitting. On August 10, 2005, the President signed the transportation reauthorization bill, P.L. 109-59. This law, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), contains various environmental provisions. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) affect many of the programs and issues discussed in this report."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Fletcher, Susan R.; Isler, Margaret; Bearden, David M. . . .

2006-06-23
Regulation of Fertilizers: Ammonium Nitrate and Anhydrous Ammonia [July 31, 2013]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The explosion on April 17, 2013, at the West Fertilizer Company fertilizer distribution facility in West, TX, has led to questions about the oversight and regulation of agricultural fertilizer. Facilities holding chemicals must comply with regulations attempting to ensure occupational safety, environmental protection, and homeland security. In addition to federal regulation requiring reporting and planning for ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia, most state and some local governments have laws and regulations regarding the handling of either or both of these chemicals. The West Fertilizer Company possessed a variety of agricultural chemicals at its retail facility, but policy interest has focused on two chemicals: ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia. Ammonium nitrate is a solid that can be used as a fertilizer, a use that generally occurs without incident. In combination with a fuel source and certain conditions, such as added heat or shock, confinement, or contamination, ammonium nitrate can pose an explosion hazard. Such accidents have rarely occurred, but have historically had high impacts. For example, the ammonium nitrate explosion in 1947 in Texas City, TX, where two ships carrying ammonium nitrate coated in wax and stored in paper bags caught fire and exploded, destroyed the entire dock area, including numerous oil tanks, dwellings, and business buildings. The bomb used in 1995 to attack the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, contained ammonium nitrate as a component of its explosives."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Shea, Dana A.; Schierow, Linda-Jo; Szymendera, Scott

2013-07-31
Pesticide Law: A Summary of the Statutes [November 14, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing federal pesticide policies under two statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), governing the sale and use of pesticide products within the United States, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which limits pesticide residues on food in interstate commerce (including imports). This report defines key terms, provides a brief history of the federal pesticide laws, and describes key provisions of the laws, including the pesticide registration process and how it interfaces with food safety requirements. In addition, this report lists several references for more detailed information about the acts, and two tables cross reference sections of the 'U.S. Code' with corresponding sections of the acts. The report is descriptive rather than analytic, highlights key provisions rather than providing a comprehensive inventory of s' numerous sections, and addresses authorities and limitations imposed by statute, rather than the status of EPA implementation or other policy issues."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Esworthy, Robert; Schierow, Linda-Jo

2012-11-14
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency [October 8, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970 to consolidate numerous federal pollution control responsibilities that had been divided among several federal agencies. EPA's responsibilities grew over time as Congress enacted an increasing number of environmental statutes and major amendments to these statutes. EPA's primary responsibilities include the regulation of air quality, water quality, and chemicals in commerce; the development of regulatory criteria for the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also provides financial assistance to states and local governments to aid them in administering pollution control programs and in complying with certain federal environmental requirements. Several federal statutes provide the legal authority for EPA's programs and activities. The major provisions of each of the following statutes are briefly summarized in this report, as laid out in existing law as of this writing. […] This report focuses primarily on EPA's program authorities under the statutes discussed herein. A list of major amendments to the parent statute is provided at the beginning of each chapter. The final table in each chapter lists the individual provisions of the statute, cross-referencing the sections of the public laws to the United States Code, where each provision is codified. The following summaries outline the major provisions of each statute. For the purpose of brevity, the summaries omit certain details and secondary provisions that would necessitate a lengthier examination. Certain prominent provisions are only briefly mentioned, which are beyond the scope of the summaries provided herein. Moreover, this report provides an analytical summary of the major provisions of the statutes, but does not examine issues associated with their implementation or with regulations that EPA may have promulgated to carry out these statutes. Other CRS [Congressional Research Service] reports offer information on current developments and issues associated with the implementation of various statutory authorities of EPA."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Bearden, David M.; Copeland, Claudia; Luther, Linda G. . . .

2010-10-08
Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements [Updated February 15, 2007]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"This report summarizes the Clean Air Act and its major regulatory requirements. It excerpts, with minor modifications, the Clean Air Act chapter of CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report RL30798, which summarizes a dozen environmental statutes that form the basis for the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency. The principal statute addressing air quality concerns, the Clean Air Act was first enacted in 1955, with major revisions in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The Act requires EPA to set health-based standards for ambient air quality, sets deadlines for the achievement of those standards by state and local governments, and requires EPA to set national emission standards for large or ubiquitous sources of air pollution, including motor vehicles, power plants, and other industrial sources. In addition, the Act mandates emission controls for sources of 188 hazardous air pollutants, requires the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in areas with clean air, requires a program to restore visibility impaired by regional haze in national parks and wilderness areas, and implements the Montreal Protocol to phase out most ozone-depleting chemicals. This report describes the Act's major provisions and provides tables listing all major amendments, with the year of enactment and Public Law number, and cross-referencing sections of the Act with the major U.S. Code sections of the codified statute."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

McCarthy, James E.; Copeland, Claudia; Parker, Larry, 1954- . . .

2007-02-15
Chemical Facility Security [Updated January 12, 2006]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Facilities handling large amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals (i.e., chemical facilities) might be of interest to terrorists, either as targets for direct attacks meant to release chemicals into the community or as a source of chemicals for use elsewhere. Because few terrorist attacks have been attempted against chemical facilities in the United States, the risk of death and injury in the near future is estimated to be low, relative to the likelihood of accidents at such facilities or attacks on other targets using conventional weapons. For any individual facility, the risk is very small, but the risks may be increasing - with potentially severe consequences for human health and the environment. Available evidence indicates that many chemical facilities may lack adequate safeguards. Two federal laws require planning to protect the general public from accidental releases of hazardous chemicals, but neither law explicitly addresses terrorism. After 9/11, Congress enacted legislation that requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to analyze vulnerabilities and suggest security enhancements for 'critical infrastructure.' The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188) and the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA, P.L. 107-295) require vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans for some chemical facilities that supply drinking water or are located in ports, as well as security plans for chemical facilities in ports. Many other chemical facilities, including wastewater treatment facilities, remain unregulated."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2006-01-12
Chemical Plant Security [Updated January 23, 2003]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
Chemical facilities might be vulnerable to direct attacks by terrorists or covert use of business contacts, facilities, and materials to gain access to potentially dangerous chemicals. Because few terrorist attacks have been attempted on U.S. chemical facilities, the estimated risk of death and injury in the near future is low, but risks may be increasing, as available evidence indicates that many facilities may lack adequate safeguards. EPA authority and the ability of existing legislation to regulate in this area is unclear (Public Law 107-296, establishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), does not address chemical plant security directly), therefore Congress might rely on existing mechanisms in the public and private sectors to evaluate and improve chemical site security, while waiting for better information about the potential harm from terrorist attacks on chemical facilities. Policy makers face at least three key issues: the effect of public disclosure; the relative importance of diverse risks; and who should be responsible for achieving results.

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2003-01-23
Chemical Plant Security [Updated January 20, 2004]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Available evidence indicates that many chemical facilities may lack adequate safeguards. Congress might rely on existing efforts in the public and private sectors to improve chemical site security, while waiting for better information about the potential harm from terrorist attacks. Alternatively, Congress could encourage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to expand existing planning requirements to consider terrorism, or authorize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to oversee security at potentially dangerous facilities. Congress also might enact legislation to reduce risks." This report provides an outline of the risks of terrorism at chemical facilities, the existing federal requirements to reduce these risks, as well as policy options and key issues regarding these options. The document provides an updated version of this report.

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2004-01-20
Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements [Updated January 19, 2022]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Summary: "This report summarizes the Clean Air Act and its major regulatory requirements. The principal statute addressing air quality concerns, the Clean Air Act was first enacted in 1955, with major revisions in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The act [1] requires EPA to set health-based standards for ambient air quality; [2] sets deadlines for the achievement of those standards by state and local governments; [3] requires EPA to set national emission standards for large or ubiquitous sources of air pollution, including motor vehicles, power plants, and other industrial sources; [4] mandates emission controls for sources of 187 hazardous air pollutants; [5] establishes a cap-and-trade program to limit acid rain; [6] requires the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in areas with clean air; [7] requires a program to restore visibility impaired by regional haze in national parks and wilderness areas; and [8] implements the Montreal Protocol to phase out most ozone-depleting chemicals. This report describes the act's major provisions and provides tables listing all major amendments, with the year of enactment and Public Law number, and cross-referencing sections of the act with the major U.S. Code sections of the codified statute."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Shouse, Kate C.; Lattanzio, Richard K.; McCarthy, James E. . . .

2022-01-19
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA): A Summary [February 2, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "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 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 [Environmental Protection Agency] 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."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2010-02-02
Chemical Regulation in the European Union: Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals [March 1, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "On June 1, 2007, the European Union (EU) began to implement a new law governing chemicals in EU commerce: Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). It is intended to protect human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals while at the same time protecting the competitiveness of European industry. REACH evolved over eight years and reflects compromises reached among EU stakeholders. The final regulation reduces and coordinates EU regulatory requirements for chemicals new to the EU market and increases collection of such information for chemicals already in the EU market, thus potentially removing disincentives to innovation that existed under the former law. It also shifts responsibility for safety assessments from government to industry and encourages substitution of less toxic for more toxic chemicals in various chemical applications. Some U.S. chemical industry representatives believe that REACH is 'impractical,' in part due to the large number of chemicals and difficulties of identifying end uses of chemicals in many products. In contrast, some public-interest groups are urging U.S. legislators to adopt a similar legislative approach."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2012-03-01
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA): A Summary [December 1, 2004]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
From the Document: "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, and local planning to respond in the event of large, accidental releases...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."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2004-12-01
Chemical Facility Security [Updated March 24, 2006]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Facilities handling large amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals (i.e., chemical facilities) might be of interest to terrorists, either as targets for direct attacks meant to release chemicals into the community or as a source of chemicals for use elsewhere. Because few terrorist attacks have been attempted against chemical facilities in the United States, the risk of death and injury in the near future is estimated to be low, relative to the likelihood of accidents at such facilities or attacks on other targets using conventional weapons. For any individual facility, the risk is very small, but the risks may be increasing - with potentially severe consequences for human health and the environment. Available evidence indicates that many chemical facilities may lack adequate safeguards. After 9/11, Congress enacted legislation that requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to analyze vulnerabilities and suggest security enhancements for 'critical infrastructure.' The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188) and the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA, P.L. 107-295) require vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans for some chemical facilities that supply drinking water or are located in ports, as well as security plans for chemical facilities in ports. Many other chemical facilities, including wastewater treatment facilities, remain unregulated."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2006-03-24
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA): A Summary [October 28, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"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."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2010-10-28
Bisphenol A (BPA) in Plastics and Possible Human Health Effects [August 13, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Bisphenol A (BPA) is used to produce certain types of plastic that are used 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 value of the animal studies for predicting harmful effects in people. 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."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo; Lister, Sarah A.

2010-08-13
Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Senate and House Bills Compared with Current Law [August 12, 2010]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"On April 15, 2010, Senator Lautenberg introduced legislation (S. 3209) to amend the core provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Title I. Representatives Waxman and Rush introduced comprehensive legislation to amend TSCA (H.R. 5820) on July 22, 2010. This report compares key provisions of S. 3209, as introduced, H.R. 5820, as introduced, and current law (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). Both bills would amend the 35-year-old law to shift the burden of demonstrating safety for chemicals in commerce from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to manufacturers and processors of chemicals. Both bills also would prohibit manufacture, processing, and distribution of any chemical substance or mixture for which safety has not been demonstrated. Although they propose somewhat different safety standards for EPA to enforce, both bills suggest a health-based standard. In contrast, current law requires that a chemical not pose 'an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,' and that any regulation should control unreasonable risk to the extent necessary using the 'least burdensome' means of available control. This TSCA standard has been interpreted to require cost-benefit balancing. To facilitate safety assessment, the proposals would require data development and submission to EPA for all chemicals in commerce. [...] The proposals differ in many details and in several noteworthy ways. For example, for all existing chemicals that have not been placed on a priority list, data sets must be submitted within 14 years of the date of enactment of S. 3209, but within five years of enactment of H.R. 5820. The proposals also treat the identification of chemicals of highest concern differently. H.R. 5820 directs EPA to expedite action for 19 specified chemicals, while S. 3209 leaves identification of such chemicals to the Administrator's discretion. These and other provisions of the two legislative proposals are compared with current law in Tables 1 through 6."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo

2010-08-12
Federal Programs Related to Indoor Pollution by Chemicals [July 23, 2012]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Because people spend a high percentage of their time indoors, and concentrations of pollutants often are higher in indoor air than outdoors, the human health risks indoors generally can be greater relative to risks from exposure to pollutants in the ambient (i.e., outdoor) air. In 1987, indoor air quality was identified by EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] scientists as one of the greatest sources of environmental risk to human health. EPA's Science Advisory Board, an independent body of experts, reviewed and endorsed this comparative risk ranking and in 1990 called upon the agency to give a higher priority to funding such high-risk environmental problems. In 1997, the Presidential and Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management again considered the relative risks presented by various environmental problems and concluded that indoor pollution could pose a substantial public health risk. In 2011, a report by the Institute of Medicine warned that many indoor air quality problems might get worse if adaptations to climate change are made without better information and programs aimed at pollution prevention. For example, methods to make homes better insulated and more energy efficient may result in less circulation with outdoor air, potentially increasing indoor concentrations of pollutants unless effective filtration or treatment technologies can be incorporated. This report describes common indoor pollutants, discusses federal statutes that have been used to address indoor pollution, and analyzes key issues surrounding some general policy options for federal policy makers. The focus is on indoor chemical contaminants, rather than on temperature, humidity, or pollution from animals, fungal or bacterial organisms, or plant pests."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo; Bearden, David M.

2012-07-23
Bisphenol A (BPA) in Plastics and Possible Human Health Effects [May 5, 2008]

Show summary Open resource [pdf] (open full abstract)
"Bisphenol A (BPA) is used to produce certain types of plastic. Containers made of these plastics may expose people to small amounts of BPA in food and water. Some animal experiments have found that fetal and infant development may be harmed by small amounts of BPA, amounts to which many people may be exposed, but scientists disagree about the value of the animal studies for predicting harmful effects in people. At least one regulatory decision in the face of the scientific disagreement has led to a congressional inquiry into the extent to which the decision was based on good science. Legislation proposed in April 2008, S. 2928, would prohibit use of BPA in some products intended for use by children."

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Schierow, Linda-Jo; Lister, Sarah A.

2008-05-05

1 2