Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Tiemann, Mary" in: author
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).
-
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (USTs): Prevention and Cleanup [April 20, 2010]
From the Document: "To address a nationwide water pollution problem caused by leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), Congress authorized a leak prevention, detection, and cleanup program in 1984, under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. In 1986, Congress established the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to provide a source of funds to support the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states in remediating leaks from petroleum USTs. Historically, EPA and states primarily have used LUST fund appropriations to oversee LUST cleanup activities by responsible parties and to clean up sites where owners fail to do so. […]. Since the program began, the frequency and severity of releases from UST systems have been reduced significantly. As of the start of FY2010, cleanup had been initiated or completed at nearly 80% of the 488,000 confirmed leaking tank sites, while a backlog of more than 100,000 contaminated sites remained. […]. Congress has increased program funding since the enactment of EPAct. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) appropriated $200 million from the trust fund for the LUST cleanup program, and Congress provided another $112.6 million from the fund for cleanup and leak prevention and detection activities in regular FY2009 appropriations. For FY2010, in P.L. 111-88, Congress provided $113.1 million from the fund, including $78.7 million for LUST cleanup activities, and $34.4 million for UST leak prevention, detection, and other program responsibilities added by the EPAct. The Administration has requested similar amounts for FY2011. This report reviews UST and LUST programs and related issues and developments."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2010-04-20
-
Safe Drinking Water Act: State Revolving Fund Program [Updated May 10, 2004]
"In the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-182),
Congress authorized a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program to help public water systems finance infrastructure projects needed to comply with federal drinking water regulations and to protect public health. Under this program, states receive capitalization grants to make loans for drinking water projects and to support certain other SDWA activities. The DWSRF program was authorized at $1 billion annually through FY2003. Since the program was first funded in FY1997, Congress has provided $6.94 billion, including $844.9 million for FY2004. Through June 2003, the DWSRF program had provided $6.37 billion in assistance and supported 5,333 projects. For FY2005, the Administration has requested $850 million for this program. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 2001 survey of capital improvement needs for public water systems indicated that communities need to invest $150.9 billion on drinking water infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years. Interest in addressing infrastructure funding needs and related issues continues in the 108th Congress. Key issues include the gap between estimated needs and funding, SDWA compliance and cost issues, particularly for small systems, and the availability of funds for security improvements. Bills have been introduced to increase DWSRF funding levels and to provide grants to small systems. This report will be updated."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2004-05-10
-
Bioterrorism: Legislation to Improve Public Health Preparedness and Response Capacity [January 31, 2002]
From the Document: "The recent anthrax attacks, though small in scale compared to the scenarios envisioned by bioterrorism experts, strained the public health system and raised concern that the nation is insufficiently prepared to respond to bioterrorist attacks. Improving public health preparedness and response capacity offers protection not only from bioterrorist attacks, but also from naturally occurring public health emergencies. In December 2001, the House and Senate each passed legislation (H.R. 3448, S. 1765) to improve the public health systems capacity to respond to bioterrorism. This legislation builds on the programs and authorities established in Title III of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act by the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-505, Title I). While the two bills are similar in many respects, there are several key differences that will be addressed in conference. The Senate bill (S. 1765) would authorize a total of $3.25 billion in FY2002 to increase the public health systems bioterrorism preparedness and response capability, including $640 million to expand the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (NPS), $509 million to purchase smallpox vaccine, and $1.46 billion for grants to state and local health departments and hospitals. S. 1765 would also strengthen regulation of domestic and imported food by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and give the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) new authority to safeguard the nations agricultural industry from the threat of bioterrorism."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Vogt, Donna U.; Tiemann, Mary
2002-01-31
-
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status and Issues [Updated March 14, 2006]
From the Document: "To address a nationwide pollution problem caused by leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), Congress created a leak prevention, detection, and cleanup program in 1984. In 1986, Congress established the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to help the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states pay the costs of cleaning up leaking petroleum USTs where owners fail to do so, and to oversee LUST cleanup activities. Much progress has been made in the program, but challenges remain. A major issue concerns the discovery of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) at thousands of LUST sites. This gasoline additive, used to reduce air pollution from auto emissions, is very water soluble, and leaks involving MTBE are more costly to remediate. Another issue is that state resources have not met the demands of overseeing the UST regulatory program. States have long sought larger appropriations from the trust fund to support the LUST program, and some have sought more flexibility in using LUST funds. The presence of MTBE in water supplies heightened congressional interest in authorizing fund appropriations to address MTBE leaks and enforce the leak prevention program."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2005-03-14
-
Safe Drinking Water Act: Implementation and Issues [Updated November 7, 2005]
"Key drinking water issues on the agenda in the 109th Congress have included problems caused by specific contaminants, such as the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and perchlorate, as well as the related issue of the appropriate federal role in providing financial assistance for water infrastructure projects. Congress last reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1996, and although funding authority for most SDWA programs expired in FY2003, broad reauthorization efforts are not expected as EPA, states, and water systems remain busy implementing the 1996 amendments. Congress included provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6) to address existing MTBE contamination of water and to better prevent future problems. The act authorizes funding from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund for the cleanup of MTBE releases and adds leak prevention provisions to the federal underground storage tank regulatory program. The Energy Policy Act also prevents EPA from regulating the underground injection of fluids (other than diesel fuel) into drinking water sources for hydraulic fracturing purposes related to oil, gas and geothermal production."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2005-11-07
-
Federal Disaster and Emergency Assistance for Water Infrastructure Facilities and Supplies [September 9, 2005]
"Natural and other disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, can impair, contaminate, or destroy public water systems, including treatment facilities and distribution systems. Costs of addressing such damage can be substantial, while the potential public health and safety consequences of lost or impaired water supplies necessitate rapid responses. Natural and other disasters also can have calamitous impacts on other water infrastructure facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants and flood control systems. To help address such emergencies, Congress has authorized programs over the years that can provide emergency assistance to repair and restore drinking water, wastewater, and related water infrastructure systems and facilities. This report offers information on federal programs that can provide emergency drinking water, wastewater, and related assistance. These include the Public Assistance grant program (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Emergency and Imminent Community Water Assistance Grant Program and Emergency Watershed Protection Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture), Drinking Water Emergency Assistance (Environmental Protection Agency), and flood control and coastal emergency response (Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers). This report will be updated to reflect developments. (For a review of other federal water assistance programs, see CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.)"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Copeland, Claudia
2005-09-09
-
Bioterrorism: Legislation to Improve Public Health Preparedness and Response Capacity [Updated March 8, 2002]
From the Document: "The recent anthrax attacks, though small in scale compared to the scenarios envisioned by bioterrorism experts, strained the public health system and raised concern that the nation is insufficiently prepared to respond to bioterrorist attacks. [...] While lawmakers work towards final passage of new authorizing legislation, Congress has appropriated $3 billion to the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) for FY2002 to increase bioterrorism preparedness at the federal, state, and local levels. [...] HHS is dispersing the funds according to existing authorities and the broad spending parameters set out in the appropriations bills."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Vogt, Donna U.; Tiemann, Mary
2002-03-08
-
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Program Overview and Issues [Updated October 24, 2008]
This CRS report is an overview of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)."The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 authorized a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program to help public water systems finance infrastructure projects needed to comply with federal drinking water regulations and to protect public health. Under the program, states receive capitalization grants to make loans to water systems for drinking water projects and certain other SDWA activities. Since FY1997, Congress has provided more than $10.3 billion for this program, including $829 million for FY2008. As of June 2007, the DWSRF program had provided a total of $12.6 billion in assistance and supported 5,346 projects. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) latest (2003) survey of capital improvement needs for public water systems found that water systems need to invest $276.8 billion on infrastructure improvements over 20 years to ensure the provision of safe water. This amount represents a 60% increase over the 1999 survey estimate of $165.5 billion (in 2003 dollars) and reflects funds needed for compliance with several revised regulations (e.g., the arsenic and radium rules), security-related needs, and better reporting of needs for infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement. Key issues include the gap between estimated needs and funding, SDWA compliance costs, and the need for cities to update and maintain water infrastructure, apart from SDWA compliance."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2008-10-24
-
Safe Drinking Water Act: State Revolving Fund Program [Updated January 7, 2003]
"In the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-182), Congress authorized a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program to help public water systems finance infrastructure projects needed to comply with federal drinking water regulations and to protect public health. Under this program, states receive capitalization grants to make loans for drinking water projects and to support certain other activities. The DWSRF program is authorized at $1 billion annually through FY2003. Since the program was first funded in FY1997, Congress has provided a total of $5.27 billion, including $850 million for FY2002. Through June 2002, states had made available a total of $5.075 billion in DWSRF assistance. In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a survey of capital improvement needs for water systems which forms the basis for allotting DWSRF funds among the states. The survey indicated that communities need to invest $150.9 billion on drinking water infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years. The107th Congress examined water infrastructure financing issues, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported legislation to increase funding authority for the DWSRF program and to create a grant program for small systems. In the 108th Congress, legislative interest in drinking water matters may continue to be dominated by infrastructure issues. These include the gap between estimated needs and funding, SDWA compliance and affordability issues for small systems, and the availability of DWSRF and other funds for security improvements."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2003-01-07
-
Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs [Updated March 25, 2003]
Although the federal government has played a significant role in developing water quality regulations and standards for municipal and industrial (M&I) water use, it historically has provided a relatively small percentage of the funding for construction of water supply and treatment facilities for M&I uses. Yet, several programs exist to assist communities with development of water supply and treatment projects, and it appears that Congress is more frequently being asked to authorize direct financial and technical assistance for developing or treating water supplies for M&I use. This report provides background information on the types of water supply and wastewater treatment projects traditionally funded by the federal government and the several existing programs to assist communities with water supply and wastewater recycling and treatment.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Copeland, Claudia; Cody, Betsy A.
2003-03-25
-
Bioterrorism: Legislation to Improve Public Health Preparedness and Response Capacity [Updated May 8, 2002]
The recent anthrax attacks, though small in scale compared to the scenarios envisioned by bioterrorism experts, strained the public health system and raised concern that the nation is insufficiently prepared to respond to bioterrorist attacks. Improving public health preparedness and response capacity offers protection not only from bioterrorist attacks, but also from naturally occurring public health emergencies. In December 2001, the House and Senate each passed legislation (H.R. 3448, S. 1765) to improve the public health system's capacity to respond to bioterrorism. This legislation builds on the programs and authorities established in Title III of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act by the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act of 2000 (P.L. 106- 505, Title I). While the two bills are similar in many respects, there are several key differences that are being addressed in conference.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Vogt, Donna U.; Tiemann, Mary
2002-05-08
-
Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues [July 12, 2012]
"Hydraulic fracturing is a technique developed initially to stimulate oil production from wells in declining oil reservoirs. With technological advances, hydraulic fracturing is now widely used to initiate oil and gas production in unconventional (low-permeability) oil and gas formations that were previously inaccessible. This process now is used in more than 90% of new oil and gas wells. Hydraulic fracturing is done after a well is drilled and involves injecting large volumes of water, sand (or other propping agent), and specialized chemicals under enough pressure to fracture the formations holding the oil or gas. The sand or other proppant holds the fractures open to allow the oil or gas to flow freely out of the formation and into a production well. […] This report reviews past and proposed treatment of hydraulic fracturing under the SDWA [Safe Drinking Water Act], the principal federal statute for regulating the underground injection of fluids to protect groundwater sources of drinking water. It reviews current SDWA provisions for regulating underground injection activities, and discusses some possible implications of, and issues associated with, enactment of legislation authorizing EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to regulate hydraulic fracturing under this statute."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Vann, Adam
2012-07-12
-
Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing: CRS Experts [August 24, 2012]
"The use of hydraulic fracturing--along with advanced drilling methods--has enabled the production of oil and gas from unconventional (low-permeability) reservoirs that were previously inaccessible. This technique is now used on more than 90% of new wells and has resulted in the marked expansion of estimated U.S. oil and natural gas reserves in recent years. The rapidly expanding use of hydraulic fracturing has drawn congressional attention to a range of related issues including potential environmental impacts; state and federal regulatory requirements; implications for domestic oil and gas supplies and energy independence; pipeline capacity and development; and others. The following tables provide names and contact information for CRS [Congressional Research Service] experts on major issues associated with hydraulic fracturing and unconventional oil and gas resource development."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Ratner, Michael
2012-08-24
-
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2013 [September 6, 2012]
"As reported July 10, 2012, by the House Committee on Appropriations, Title II of H.R [House Resolution] 6091, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Act, 2013, included a total of $7.06 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2013, $1.28 billion (15.5%) below the President's FY2013 request of $8.34 billion, and $1.39 billion (16.5%) below the FY2012 enacted appropriation of $8.45 billion. Although the House committee-reported bill proposed an overall decrease for EPA, it included both decreases and increases in funding for many individual programs and activities in the eight appropriations accounts that fund the agency compared with the FY2013 requested and FY2012 enacted levels. Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA accounts within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations. [...] Other prominent issues that have received attention within the context of EPA appropriations include the level of funding for implementing certain air pollution control requirements including greenhouse gas emission regulations, climate change research and related activities, cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program, cleanup of sites that tend to be less hazardous (referred to as brownfields), and cleanup of petroleum from leaking underground tanks. [...] In addition to funding priorities among the many pollution control programs and activities, several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions continue to be controversial in the FY2013 appropriations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Esworthy, Robert; Bearden, David M.; Tiemann, Mary
2012-09-06
-
NAFTA: Related Environmental Issues and Initiatives [March 1, 2000]
"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) includes several environment-related provisions, that while limited, were lauded for their inclusion in a trade agreement. However, further environmental (and labor) assurances were needed to secure passage of NAFTA, and ultimately, the negotiating parties agreed to a side accord that promotes trilateral cooperation on environmental matters and includes provisions to address a party's failure to enforce environmental laws. Further to gain NAFTA support, the United States and Mexico agreed to establish a bilateral Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American Development Bank to help border-area communities finance environmental infrastructure projects. The United States and Mexico also developed a cooperative plan to address a range of border environmental issues; phase two of the plan, the Border XXI Program, began in 1996. Since NAFTA's inception, its environmental implications have remained a subject of debate and legislation. Ongoing issues include NAFTA's possible environmental effects, border funding, and the implementation of NAFTA-related environmental agreements. This report provides an overview of NAFTA's environmental provisions and associated agreements and initiatives, and discusses recent issues and congressional activities. It will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2000-03-01
-
Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Issues [January 10, 2013]
"Hydraulic fracturing is a technique developed initially to stimulate oil production from wells in declining oil reservoirs. With technological advances, hydraulic fracturing is now widely used to initiate oil and gas production in unconventional (low-permeability) oil and gas formations that were previously inaccessible. This process now is used in more than 90% of new oil and gas wells. Hydraulic fracturing is done after a well is drilled and involves injecting large volumes of water, sand (or other propping agent), and specialized chemicals under enough pressure to fracture the formations holding the oil or gas. The sand or other proppant holds the fractures open to allow the oil or gas to flow freely out of the formation and into a production well. Its application, along with horizontal drilling, for production of natural gas (methane) from tight gas sands, unconventional shale formations, and coal beds, has resulted in the marked expansion of estimated U.S. natural gas reserves in recent years. Similarly, hydraulic fracturing is enabling the development of tight oil resources, such as the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations. The rapid growth in the use of fracturing has raised concerns over its potential impacts on groundwater and drinking water sources, and has led to calls for more state and/or federal oversight of this activity. […] This report reviews past and proposed treatment of hydraulic fracturing under the SDWA [Safe Drinking Water Act], the principal federal statute for regulating the underground injection of fluids to protect groundwater sources of drinking water. It reviews current SDWA provisions for regulating underground injection activities, and discusses some possible implications of the enactment of legislation authorizing EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to regulate hydraulic fracturing (beyond diesel) under this statute."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Vann, Adam
2013-01-10
-
Safeguarding the Nation's Drinking Water: EPA and Congressional Actions [Updated January 30, 2008]
"The events of September 11, 2001, focused heightened attention on the security status of the nation's drinking water supplies and the vulnerability of this critical infrastructure sector to attack. Congress since has enacted security requirements for public water systems and has provided funding for vulnerability assessments, emergency planning, and drinking water research. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead federal agency for the water sector, has worked with water utilities, state and local governments, and federal agencies to improve the drinking water security. […]. Although EPA, states, localities, and water utilities have taken steps to address security concerns, the security of the nation's water supplies continues to attract congressional attention. Issues receiving attention have included the status of efforts by the water sector to improve security, whether to increase federal requirements, funding needs for water systems to make security improvements, the relative roles and responsibilities of EPA and DHS regarding the water sector, and the status of research and development of technologies to help water systems detect and address potential biological and chemical contaminants. This report reviews governmental and water utility efforts to improve drinking water security."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2008-01-30
-
Safe Drinking Water Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements [Updated May 21, 2008]
This CRS report "summarizes the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] and its major programs and regulatory requirements. It excerpts, with several additions, the SDWA chapter of CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Sumaries of Major Statues Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which provides summaries of the principal environmental statutes administered by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. This report includes the drinking water security provisions added to the SDWA by the Public Heath Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 [P.L. 107-188]. In addition to reviewing key programs and requirements of the SDWA, this report includes statistics on the number and types of regulated public water systems. It also provides tables that list all major amendments, with the year of enactment and public law number, and that cross-reference sections of the act with the major U.S. Code sections of the codified statute. The Safe Drinking Water Act, Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act, is the key federal law for protecting public water supplies from harmful contaminants. First enacted in 1974 and substantially amended in 1986 and 1996, the act is administered through programs that establish standards and treatment requirements for public water supplies, control underground injection of wastes, finance infrastructure projects, and protect sources of drinking water."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2008-05-21
-
Safe Drinking Water Act: Selected Regulatory and Legislative Issues [Updated April 10, 2008]
"Much progress has been made in assuring the quality of public water supplies since the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was first enacted in 1974. Public water systems must meet extensive regulations, and public water system management has become a much more complex and professional endeavor. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated some 91 drinking water contaminants, and more regulations are pending. In 2005, EPA reported that the number of systems reporting no violations of drinking water standards reached a new high of 94% in 2003. Despite such progress, however, an array of issues and challenges remain. […]. Congress last reauthorized SDWA in 1996. Although funding authority for most SDWA programs expired in FY2003, Congress continues to appropriate funds annually for these programs. No broad reauthorization bills have been proposed, as EPA, states, and water systems continue efforts to implement and comply with the requirements of the 1996 law and new regulations. A long-standing and overarching SDWA issue concerns the cumulative cost and complexity of drinking water standards and the ability of water systems, especially small systems, to comply with standards. The issue of the affordability of drinking water regulations, such as those for arsenic, radium, and disinfection by-products, has merged with the larger debate over what is the appropriate federal role in assisting communities with financing drinking water infrastructure."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2008-04-10
-
Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues [April 10, 2012]
"Hydraulic fracturing is a technique developed initially to stimulate oil production from wells in declining oil reservoirs. More recently, it has been used to initiate oil and gas production in unconventional (i.e., low-permeability) reservoirs where these resources were previously inaccessible. This process now is used in more than 90% of new oil and gas production wells. Hydraulic fracturing is done after a well is drilled and involves injecting large volumes of water, sand (or other propping agent), and specialized chemicals under enough pressure to fracture the formations holding the oil or gas. The sand or other proppant holds the fractures open to allow the oil or gas to flow freely out of the formation and into a production well. Its application, along with horizontal drilling, for production of natural gas (methane) from coal beds, tight gas sands, and, more recently, from unconventional shale formations, has resulted in the marked expansion of estimated U.S. natural gas reserves in recent years. Similarly, hydraulic fracturing is enabling the development of unconventional domestic oil resources, such as the Bakken Formation in North Dakota and Montana. However, the rapidly increasing and geographically expanding use of fracturing, along with a growing number of citizen complaints and state investigations of well water contamination attributed to this practice, has led to calls for greater state and/or federal environmental regulation and oversight of this activity."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Tiemann, Mary
2012-04-10
-
Arsenic in Drinking Water: Regulatory Developments and Issues [Updated December 3, 2007]
"In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a new regulation for arsenic in drinking water, as required by 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. The rule set the legal limit for arsenic in tap water at 10 parts per billion (ppb), replacing a 50 ppb standard set in 1975, before arsenic was classified as a carcinogen. When issuing the rule, the EPA projected that compliance could be costly for some small systems, but many water utilities and communities expressed concern that the EPA had underestimated the rule's costs significantly. The arsenic rule was to enter into effect on March 23, 2001, and public water systems were given until January 23, 2006, to comply. Subsequently, the EPA postponed the rule's effective date to February 22, 2002, to review the science and cost and benefit analyses supporting the rule. After completing the review in October 2001, the EPA affirmed the 10 ppb standard. The new standard became enforceable for water systems in January 2006. Since the rule was completed, Congress and the EPA have focused on how to help communities comply with the new standard. In the past several Congresses, numerous bills have been offered to provide more financial and technical assistance and/or compliance flexibility to small systems; however, none of the bills has been enacted."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2007-12-03
-
Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues [February 4, 2008]
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 67% of the 246 million people in the United States who receive their water from a public water system received fluoridated water in 2000. One of the CDC's national health goals is to increase the proportion of the U.S. population served by community water systems with 'optimally' fluoridated drinking water to 75% by 2010. The decision to add fluoride to a water supply is made by local or state governments. The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) has recommended an optimal fluoridation level in the range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for the prevention of tooth decay. […] Although fluoride is added to water to strengthen teeth, some communities must treat their water to remove excess amounts of fluoride that is present either naturally or from pollution. In 1986, EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] issued a drinking water regulation for fluoride that includes an enforceable standard (maximum contaminant level [MCL]) and an MCL goal (MCLG) of 4 mg/L to protect against adverse effects on bone structure. EPA acknowledged that the standard did not protect infants and young children against dental fluorosis, which EPA considered a cosmetic effect rather than a health effect. To address this concern, EPA included in the regulation a secondary (advisory) standard of 2 mg/L to protect children against dental fluorosis and adverse health effects. As part of its review of the fluoride regulation, EPA asked the National Research Council (NRC) to review the health risk data for fluoride and to assess the adequacy of EPA's standards. In March 2006, the NRC released its study and concluded that EPA's 4 mg/L MCLG should be lowered."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2008-02-04
-
Arsenic in Drinking Water: Regulatory Developments and Issues [October 5, 2006]
"In January 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a new regulation for arsenic in drinking water, as required by 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. The rule set the legal limit for arsenic in tap water at 10 parts per billion (ppb), replacing a 50 ppb standard that was set in 1975, before arsenic was classified as a carcinogen. The arsenic rule was to enter into effect on March 23, 2001, and public water systems were given until January 23, 2006, to comply. When issuing the rule, EPA projected that compliance could be costly for some small systems, but many water utilities and communities expressed concern that EPA had underestimated the rule's costs. Subsequently, EPA postponed the rule's effective date to February 22, 2002, in order to review the science and cost and benefit analyses supporting the rule. In October 2001, EPA affirmed the 10 ppb standard. The compliance date remained unchanged, and the new standard became enforceable for water systems in January 2006. With the arsenic regulation in place, Congress and EPA have focused on how to help communities comply with the new requirements. In the 109th Congress, bills have been introduced to establish small system grant programs and to provide more compliance flexibility and technical assistance to small systems. This report reviews issues surrounding the arsenic rule and related congressional and EPA actions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary
2006-10-05
-
Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison of Provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58 and H.R. 6) [October 3, 2006]
"In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6), Congress established a requirement for the use of renewable fuels and revised Clean Air Act and underground storage tank regulatory requirements to address public health and environmental concerns associated with the use of fuels and fuel additives, especially methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Much contentious debate centered on the issue of how to address water quality problems associated with MTBE use while preserving air quality benefits of reformulated gasoline and, at the same time, promoting the use of renewable fuels (especially ethanol). This report compares the renewable fuel and MTBE provisions in the House and Senate versions of H.R. 6 with the provisions Congress ultimately agreed to in Title XV of P.L. 109-58. […] The Energy Policy Act also amends the underground storage tank (UST) regulatory program to specifically authorize EPA and states to use funds appropriated from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to address fuel leaks involving MTBE and other oxygenated fuel additives. The law also expands the leak prevention provisions of the UST program and imposes new requirements on states, EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], and tank owners."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Yacobucci, Brent D.; Tiemann, Mary; McCarthy, James E.
2006-10-03
-
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency [Updated February 28, 2007]
"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
-
Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress [Updated August 21, 2006]
"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]
"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
-
Shale Energy Technology Assessment: Current and Emerging Water Practices [July 14, 2014]
"Shale oil and gas (collectively referred to as shale energy), long considered 'unconventional' hydrocarbon resources, are now being developed rapidly. Economic extraction of shale energy resources typically relies on the use of hydraulic fracturing. This technique often requires significant amounts of freshwater, and fracturing flowback and related wastewaters must be recycled or disposed of after a well is completed. While shale energy presents a significant energy resource, its development has the potential to pose risks to water availability and water quality. This report provides a technological assessment of existing and emerging water procurement and management practices in shale energy-producing regions of the United States. The intersection of evolving technology, growing environmental concerns, demand for new sources of hydrocarbon energy, and the potential national interests in developing shale oil and gas resources provides the context for this study. Congressional attention has been focused on two key aspects of the issue: shale energy as a growing U.S. energy source, and environmental concerns associated with the development of these resources."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Folger, Peter (Peter Franklin); Carter, Nicole T.
2014-07-14
-
Hydraulic Fracturing: Selected Legal Issues [October 22, 2013]
"Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used to recover oil and natural gas from underground low permeability rock formations. Its use along with horizontal drilling has been responsible for an increase in estimated U.S. oil and natural gas reserves. Hydraulic fracturing and related oil and gas production activities have been controversial because of their potential effects on public health and the environment. Several environmental statutes have implications for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing by the federal government and states. An amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) passed as a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) clarified that the Underground Injection Control (UIC) requirements found in the SDWA do not apply to hydraulic fracturing, although the exclusion does not extend to the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing operations. The underground injection of wastewater generated during oil and gas production (including hydraulic fracturing) does require a UIC permit under the SDWA, as do injections for enhanced oil and gas recovery operations. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), parties seeking to discharge produced water may have to apply for a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued new rules covering emissions of volatile organic compounds from hydraulic fracturing operations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Vann, Adam; Murrill, Brandon J.; Tiemann, Mary
2013-10-22
-
Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Issues [July 13, 2015]
"Hydraulic fracturing is a technique developed initially to stimulate oil production from wells in
declining oil reservoirs. With technological advances, hydraulic fracturing is now widely used to
initiate oil and gas production in unconventional (low-permeability) oil and gas formations that
were previously uneconomical to produce. Nationwide, this process is now used in more than
90% of new oil and gas wells and in many existing wells to stimulate production. Hydraulic
fracturing is done after a well is drilled and involves injecting large volumes of water, sand (or
other propping agent), and specialized chemicals under enough pressure to fracture formations
holding the oil or gas. The sand or other proppant holds the fractures open to allow the oil or gas
to flow freely out of the formation and into a production well. In combination with directional
drilling, its application for production of natural gas (methane) from unconventional shale
formations, tight sands, and coal beds has resulted in the marked expansion of estimated U.S.
natural gas reserves in recent years. Similarly, hydraulic fracturing is enabling the development of
tight oil resources, such as the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations. The rapid growth in the use of
fracturing has raised concerns over its potential impacts on groundwater and drinking water
resources and has led to calls for more state and/or federal oversight of this activity."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Tiemann, Mary; Vann, Adam
2015-07-13
