Search

May 26, 2020 On May 19, 2020, following several days of heavy rain, the Edenville Dam on the Tittabawasee River in Gladwin County, Michigan, failed and sent a large volume [...]

Thousands of oil and chemical spills of varying size and magnitude occur in the United States each year. When a spill occurs, state and local officials located in proximity to the incident generally are the first responders and may elevate an incident for federal attention if greater resources are desired. A February 3, 2023, spill of vinyl chloride and other hazardous materials resulting from the derailment of a Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine, Ohio near the western border of Pennsylvania illustrates a recent spill for which the federal government has been involved in a response. The National Transportation Safety Board is responsible for investigating the cause of the derailment. The spill is one of many across the United States for which the federal government is presently involved in a coordinated response with state and local governments. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, often referred to as the National Contingency Plan (NCP), establishes the procedures for the federal response to oil and chemical spills. The response framework of the NCP encompasses discharges of oil into or upon U.S. waters and adjoining shorelines and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the environment. The NCP was developed in 1968 and has been revised multiple times to implement federal statutory response authorities that Congress has expanded over time. Three federal environmental statutes authorized the development of the NCP: Clean Water Act, as amended; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended; and Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Several executive orders have delegated the presidential response authorities of these statutes to federal departments and agencies that implement the NCP. The lead federal agency serves as the On-Scene Coordinator to direct the federal response. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads the federal response within the inland zone on non-federal land, and the U.S. Coast Guard serves as the lead agency within the coastal zone. A response to a spill at a federal facility is coordinated by the federal department or agency that administers the facility. The NCP established the National Response System (NRS) as a multi-tiered framework to coordinate 15 federal departments and agencies on the National Response Team in providing specialized resources and expertise, and involving state and local officials and other nonfederal entities. Although the framework of the NRS is the same for responding to oil or chemical spills, the NCP establishes separate operational elements for responding to each type of incident, and these elements differ in some respects. The source of federal funding to carry out a response also differs. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund finances the federal response to a discharge of oil, and the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund finances the federal response to a release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Respectively, the Oil Pollution Act and CERCLA establish financial liability to recover response costs from the responsible parties, and authorize orders and other mechanisms to enforce liability. However, the scope of liability under CERCLA is limited to hazardous substances, and does not cover other pollutants or contaminants. For multi-faceted incidents (e.g., presidentially declared major disasters or emergencies under the Stafford Act), the NCP also could be invoked under the National Response Framework (NRF) to address an aspect of an incident involving a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. The NRF is a broader administrative mechanism for coordinating the array of federal emergency response plans. However, the NRF itself is not an operational plan that dictates a step-by-step process. For an incident involving the discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant, the NRF instead merely applies the NCP as the operational plan to respond to that facet of an incident. This report discusses the authorities, relevant executive orders, and federal emergency response framework of the NCP, and identifies the funding mechanisms to carry out a federal response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the U.S. government role in the risk associated with Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with exposures above certain levels are associated with various adverse health effects. It mentions actions have been taken primarily under the authorities of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Clean Water Act (CWA); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Updated May 13, 2015 Contents Introduction Key Concepts What is a deployable federal asset? When does the federal government provide support to response operations? What level of support is the [...]

Contents Most Recent Developments Status Overview The Budget Control Act and Energy and Water Development Appropriations for FY2015 The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative Title I: Army Corps of Engineers [...]

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (63) The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish an Office of Pollution Prevention, develop and coordinate a pollution prevention [...]

The article focuses on federal role in responding to potential risks of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances. It mentions that federal actions to address potential risks from polyfluoroalkyl substances have focused mostly on perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate because of past uses, prevalence in the environment, and availability of health effects research.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) was enacted in 1969 and signed into law by President Nixon on January 1, 1970 (P.L. 91-190). NEPA was [...]

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish an Office of Pollution Prevention, develop and coordinate a pollution prevention strategy, and develop source reduction models. [...]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing federal pesticide policies under two statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),33 governing the sale and use of pesticide [...]

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) authorizes the EPA to screen existing and new chemicals used in U.S. manufacturing and commerce to identify potentially dangerous [...]

By the end of the 1970s, Congress had enacted several environmental laws to regulate sources of pollution in the United States, but had not yet addressed responsibility for contamination resulting [...]

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA, codified at 42 U.S.C. 11001-11050) was enacted in 1986 as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (P.L. 99-499). EPCRA [...]

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established the federal program regulating solid and hazardous waste management. RCRA actually amends earlier legislation (the Solid Waste Disposal Act of [...]

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act, is the key federal law for protecting public water supplies from harmful contaminants. First enacted in [...]

The Ocean Dumping Act has two basic aims: to regulate intentional ocean disposal of materials, and to authorize related research. Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act [...]

The Clean Air Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., seeks to protect human health and the environment from emissions that pollute ambient, or outdoor, air. It requires the [...]

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 [...]

October 8, 2010 Summary 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 [...]

Summary 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 […]

The article reports that the U.S. Congress has funded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bills. It mentions adequacy of funding for EPA to effectively carry out its mission and provide associated grants to support authorized state and tribal implementation of federal pollution control laws. It also mentions Superfund account supports the environmental remediation of priority sites.

The article discusses the important role played by the U.S. Environmental Agency Protection (EPA) in risk management, emergency planning, and release notification at chemical facilities. Topics discussed include the Risk Management Program (RMP), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).

The article discusses the creation of Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 in the U.S. to help communities plan for chemical emergencies. It mentions that the EPCRA requires the chemical industry to report on the storage, use and releases of hazardous substances to federal, state, and local governments.

The article discusses the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Section 112r passed by the U.S. Congress have authorizes Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish approved facility risk management planning requirements for chemical facilities. Topics discussed include the General Duty Clause (GDC), the Risk Management Plans (RMPs), and the revision of RMP requirements under the administration of the U.S. President Barack Obama.

The article provides information on the history and provisions of the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA). It discusses revisions made to the CWA, which was originally enacted in 1948. According to the article, the law is composed of two major parts, one is provisions which authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant construction and the other is regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and municipal dischargers.

The article provides information on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), two statutes administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the article, FIFRA regulates the sale and use of pesticide products within the U.S. while the FFDCA limits pesticide residues on food in interstate commerce.

The article provides information on the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). According to the article, TSCA allows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate existing and new chemicals used in U.S. manufacturing and commerce to identify products or uses that are potentially dangerous. The law also mandates manufacturers, importers and processors to inform the EPA at least 90 days prior to manufacturing or introducing a new chemical product into the U.S.

The article provides information on provisions of the U.S. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). According to the article, EPCRA authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to mobilize local groups and organizations to plan ahead for possible chemical accidents in their communities. It also requires the creation of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), an EPA database of toxic chemical releases to the environment by manufacturers.

The article provides information on the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to the article, NEPA mandates federal agencies to develop a detailed report of the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions that significantly affect the environment. It discusses the role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in implementing the provisions of the NEPA.

The article provides information on provisions of the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). According to the article, RCRA authorizes the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) to establish standards for facilities that generate or manage hazardous waste, creates a permit program for hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. It also allows EPA to set criteria for disposal facilities that accept municipal solid waste.

The article provides information on provisions of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). According to the article, SDWA is administered through programs that create standards and treatment requirements for public water supplies, control underground injection of wastes, finance infrastructure projects and protect sources of drinking water.

The article provides information on provision of the U.S. Ocean Dumping Act or Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). According to the article, the goal of the Ocean Dumping Act is to regulate intentional ocean dumping of materials and to authorize related research. The MPRSA prohibits any disposal of radiological, chemical and biological warfare agents and any high-level radioactive waste and medical wastes by any U.S. vessel, or by any vessel sailing from a U.S. port.

The article offers information on the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA authorizes the federal government to clean up contaminated sites in the U.S. and makes potentially responsible parties connected to those areas financially liable for the cleanup costs. Administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CERCLA also allowed the creation of a grant program to support the cleanup of abandoned or idled brownfields properties.

The article provides information on provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act. According to the article, the Clean Air Act mandates the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) to create minimum national standards for air quality and assign primary responsibility to the states to ensure compliance with the standards. The article notes that the law also establishes a comprehensive permit system for all major sources of air pollution.

The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. Key budgetary issues for FY2010 involving these programs may include: the distribution of Corps appropriations across the agency’s authorized planning, construction, and maintenance activities (Title I); support of major ecosystem restoration initiatives, such as Florida Everglades (Title I) and California “Bay-Delta” (CALFED) and San Joaquin River (Title II); funding for the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Title III: Nuclear Waste Disposal); several new initiatives proposed for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs (Title III); and funding decisions in DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. Energy and Water Development funding for FY2009 was included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8). In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, the “Stimulus” Act, P.L. 111-5) included funding for numerous programs in the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of Energy, to be expended in FY2009 and FY2010. Funding for FY2010 Energy and Water Development programs is contained in H.R. 3183, which the House passed July 17, 2009. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 3183 July 29. The Conference Committee issued its report (H.Rept. 111-278) September 30, and the House passed the conference bill October 1, and the Senate October 15. The President signed the bill October 28 (P.L. 111-85). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several bills (S. 590, H.R. 1959, and H.R. 2295) that would modify or expand statutory authorities granted to senior executives of the Department of Defense (DOD) have been introduced to the 111th Congress. These authorities relate to the exchange of real property, the outsourcing of some military installation support services, and the reimbursement by DOD of some costs associated with military site cleanup. The proposed legislation would also amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, the BRAC law, to expand existing legal protections granted to those who have taken title to property at closed military bases and to set conditions under which future title transfers for surplus military property would be carried out at no cost to the recipient. S. 590 and H.R. 2295 are identical. If enacted, these bills would render permanent an expired authority held by the Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of a military department) to exchange any defense real property for real property held by non-DOD entities if the exchange will limit encroachment on military activities or will relieve a shortage of military housing. They would also expand and make permanent a limited pilot program that allows certain services currently performed at military installations by DOD employees or private contractors to be non-competitively outsourced to municipal or county governments. Another section in the bills would expand the authority of the Secretary of Defense to enter into a cost-reimbursement agreement for the cleanup of a military site. Current law permits agreements that reimburse federal, state, and local agencies and other entities for certain costs incurred by participation in a cleanup program. The bill would allow reimbursement agreements to include costs incurred in the processing of a transfer of title of federal property and would prevent the Secretary from imposing certain conditions on the funding made available. The remaining sections of the bills would amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, the so-called BRAC law. They would expand the legal protections available to persons who have taken title to property on closed military bases and would require the conveyance of surplus military property at no cost if certain conditions are met. This report analyzes the key provisions of the legislation, identifies probable effects of the proposed amendments to existing law, and suggests issues raised for congressional consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2005, the 109th Congress approved a new Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. As the Department of Defense (DOD) implements the new round, issues for Congress include the pace and costs of closing and realigning the selected installations and the impacts on surrounding communities. The disposal of surplus property has stimulated interest among affected communities in how the land can be redeveloped to replace jobs lost as a result of the planned closures. Environmental contamination can limit the potential for economic redevelopment if the availability of funding or technological capabilities constrains the degree of cleanup needed to make the land suitable for its intended use. Although most of the properties on installations closed under the four earlier rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 have been cleaned up and made available for redevelopment, the most extensively contaminated properties remain in various stages of cleanup to make them suitable for their desired use. Cleanup began many years ago at 2005 round installations when they were still operational. As a result, cleanup generally should be at a more advanced stage upon closure, compared to installations closed under earlier rounds when cleanup efforts were less mature. Still, installations closed under the 2005 round could face delays in redevelopment if a community's desired land use would require a lengthy and costly cleanup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for two agencies within other departments - the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, and numerous other entities. The President requested $25.78 billion for FY2009 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, a $1.63 billion (6%) reduction from the FY2008 level of $27.40 billion. While the President sought to increase funds for some agencies, he requested reduced funds for most agencies. Among the proposed increases for FY2009, over FY2008 appropriations, were the following: $42.3 million (36%) for the Minerals Management Service (MMS); and $33.8 million (5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI). Among the proposed decreases were the following: $885.1 million (18%) for the Forest Service (FS); $319.0 million (4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA); $206.9 million (20%) for DOI Wildland Fire Management; $99.9 million (4%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and $64.6 million (5%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have held hearings on agency budget requests. No bill to fund Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2009 has been introduced to date. Congress may debate a variety of funding and policy issues during consideration of FY2009 Interior appropriations legislation.... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How to address safety, health, and environmental risks from potential exposure to abandoned or discarded military munitions has been a long-standing issue. There has been particular concern among the public about such risks at older decommissioned military properties that have been in civilian use for many years, and at closed military bases still awaiting redevelopment. Many of these properties contain former training ranges and munitions disposal sites where the extent of unexploded ordnance (UXO) and related environmental contamination is not fully understood. The approval of another round of military base closings in 2005 raised additional concerns about munitions risks on certain bases, and whether cleanup challenges may limit their civilian reuse. This report discusses the potential hazards of military munitions and related contamination, the authorities of the Department of Defense (DOD) to address these hazards, the status and costs of cleanup efforts, and issues for Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]