Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Congressional research reportAug 15, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

(name redacted)

Specialist in Environmental Policy

(name redacted)

Specialist in Environmental Policy

August 15, 2014

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43689

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Summary

Enacted on January 17, 2014, Title II of Division G of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014

(P.L. 113-76, H.R. 3547) provided $8.20 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

for FY2014. The act appropriated funding for the full fiscal year through September 30, 2014, for

all of the 12 regular appropriations acts, including EPA within Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies. Total discretionary appropriations available in FY2014 for all federal departments and

agencies were based on a cap of $1.012 trillion set in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (P.L.

113-67). The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this

spending level in FY2014 would not trigger sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011

(BCA; P.L. 112-25), as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA; P.L. 112-240).

Unlike FY2013, the FY2014 appropriations therefore were not reduced through sequestration.

The total FY2014 enacted appropriations of $8.20 billion for EPA were $47.0 million (0.6%)

more than the President’s FY2014 request of $8.15 billion, and $298.9 million (3.8%) above the

FY2013 enacted appropriations of $7.90 billion (post-sequestration and rescission) provided in

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) as reported by EPA in its FY2013

Operating Plan. The FY2014 enacted appropriations are a $278.4 million (3.3%) decrease

compared to the total FY2013 appropriations of $8.48 billion for EPA, when accounting for the

$577.3 million (post-sequestration) in supplemental funds provided in the Disaster Relief

Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2). These supplemental funds were dedicated to water

infrastructure, cleanup, and other recovery efforts in areas of states affected by Hurricane Sandy

in late October 2012.

No regular FY2014 appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was

introduced in the House or Senate prior to the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2013. On July

31, 2013, the House Appropriations Committee began, but did not conclude, markup of an

FY2014 Interior appropriations bill. On August 1, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee

on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released a draft FY2014 Interior appropriations

bill with an accompanying explanatory statement to serve as a starting point for debate in the

Senate. No regular appropriations bills for FY2014 were enacted prior to the beginning of that

fiscal year. Following a temporary lapse in funding through October 16, 2013, EPA and other

federal departments and agencies operated under two continuing resolutions (P.L. 113-46 and P.L.

113-73) prior to the enactment of P.L. 113-76 to fund the full fiscal year.

Considerable attention during the debate and hearings on the EPA’s appropriations for FY2014

focused on federal financial assistance to states for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure

projects, various categorical grants to states to support general implementation and enforcement

of federal environmental programs as delegated to the states, funding for implementation and

research support for air pollution control requirements, climate change and greenhouse gas

emissions, and funding for environmental cleanup.

In addition to funding for specific programs and activities, several recent and pending EPA

regulatory actions received attention during hearings on FY2014 appropriations for EPA, similar

to the debate regarding appropriations for the agency for recent fiscal years. Although a number

of provisions to prohibit or restrict the use of FY2014 appropriations for certain EPA actions were

considered in the House Appropriations Committee markup, most of these provisions were not

included in the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee draft, the partial-fiscal year continuing

resolutions noted above, or P.L. 113-76 that provided funding for the full fiscal year.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

This report summarizes actions on FY2014 appropriations for EPA and presents a breakout of the

FY2014 enacted appropriations for the agency by each of the nine appropriations accounts and by

selected programs and activities within those accounts that received more prominent attention in

the congressional debate. The discussions and tables presented in this report compare the FY2014

enacted appropriations for EPA to the President’s FY2014 budget request, and the FY2013

enacted appropriations (post-sequestration and rescission), including funding provided in P.L.

113-6 and the disaster relief supplemental funds provided P.L. 113-2.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

EPA FY2014 Appropriations by Account ........................................................................................ 4

Selected EPA Programs and Activities............................................................................................. 7

Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure ......................................................................... 7

Water Infrastructure in Geographic-Specific Areas ................................................................... 9

Categorical Grants to States and Tribes ..................................................................................... 9

Air Quality and Climate Change Activities ............................................................................. 11

Cleanup of Superfund Sites ..................................................................................................... 14

Brownfields ............................................................................................................................. 17

Underground Storage Tanks .................................................................................................... 18

Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs ............................................................................. 21

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative..................................................................................... 22

Chesapeake Bay ................................................................................................................ 22

National (Congressional) Priorities and Earmarks .................................................................. 23

Figures

Figure 1. EPA Appropriations by Account: Proportional Comparison of FY2014 Enacted

to FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission) ............................................................. 6

Figure A-1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority FY1976-FY2014 (Est.): Adjusted and

Not Adjusted for Inflation........................................................................................................... 28

Figure A-2. EPA’s Reported Authorized Full Time Equivalent (FTE), Employment

Ceiling FY2001-FY2014 ............................................................................................................ 29

Tables

Table 1. EPA Appropriations by Account: FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request,

and FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission) .......................................................... 5

Table 2. Appropriations for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)

Capitalization Grants within the EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)

Account: FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted (PostSequestration and Rescission) ...................................................................................................... 8

Table 3. Appropriations for Categorical Grants within the EPA State and Tribal Assistance

Grants (STAG) Account: FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013

Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission) ............................................................................. 10

Table 4. Appropriations for Selected EPA Air Quality Research and Implementation

Activities by Account: FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013

Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission) ............................................................................. 13

Table 5. Appropriations for the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund Account: FY2014

Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and

Rescission) .................................................................................................................................. 16

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Table 6. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program: FY2014 Enacted, President’s

FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission) ........................... 18

Table 7. EPA Appropriations for Cleanup and Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks:

FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted (PostSequestration and Rescission) .................................................................................................... 20

Table 8. Appropriations for Selected Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs within

the EPA Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) Account: FY2014 Enacted,

President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission) ......... 21

Table A-1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

FY2008-FY2014 Enacted ........................................................................................................... 26

Table B-1. EPA’s Nine Appropriations Accounts........................................................................... 30

Appendixes

Appendix A. Historical Funding Trends and Staffing Levels ........................................................ 24

Appendix B. Descriptions of EPA’s Nine Appropriations Accounts.............................................. 30

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 31

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Introduction

Enacted on January 17, 2014, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76, H.R.

3547) appropriated funding for the full fiscal year through September 30, 2014, for all of the 12

regular appropriations acts. The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations act,

which includes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is contained in Division

G of the act. Title II of Division G provided $8.20 billion for EPA for FY2014, $47.0 million

(0.6%) more than the President’s FY2014 request of $8.15 billion, and $298.9 million (3.8%)

above the FY2013 enacted appropriation of $7.90 billion (post-sequestration and rescission)

provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) as presented by EPA in its

FY2013 Operating Plan. The FY2014 enacted appropriations were a $278.4 million (3.3%)

decrease below the total FY2013 appropriations of $8.48 billion for EPA, when accounting for

the $577.3 million (post-sequestration) in supplemental funds provided in the Disaster Relief

Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2). These supplemental funds were dedicated to water

infrastructure, cleanup, and other recovery efforts in areas of states affected by Hurricane Sandy

in late October 2012.

Congress considered FY2014 discretionary appropriations for federal departments and agencies,

including EPA, under the parameters of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) as

amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA; P.L. 112-240).1 That act established,

among other things, a statutory limit on discretionary spending through FY2021 and required a

sequestration of budgetary resources if the President and Congress failed to enact legislation

reducing the federal deficit by a specified date. Initially during the FY2014 budget process, the

House and the Senate adopted separate budget resolutions with differing total discretionary

spending levels, and allocations between defense and nondefense spending. The chairs of the

House and Senate Budget Committees announced an agreement (H.J.Res. 59) amending the BCA

FY2014 and FY2015 discretionary spending limits. Enacted into law on December 26, 2013, the

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Division A of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014,

P.L. 113-67, H.J.Res. 59) established a total cap of $1.012 trillion for FY2014 and $1.014 trillion

for FY2015 for non-defense and defense discretionary spending.2

No regular FY2014 appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was

introduced in the House or Senate prior to the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2013. The

House Appropriations Committee began markup of an FY2014 Interior appropriations bill on

July 31, 2013, but the markup was suspended and not concluded.3 On August 1, 2013, the leaders

of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

released a draft FY2014 Interior appropriations bill4 with an accompanying explanatory statement

For information on the Budget Control Act, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by (name redact

ed), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

P.L. 113-67, Division A §101(a)(1).

The markup focused on the bill and accompanying explanatory statement approved on July 23, 2013, by the House

Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Subcommittee’s bill is available on

the House Committee on Appropriations website at http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-113hr-fc-apfy2014-ap00-interior.pdf, and the explanatory statement is available at http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/

hrpt-113-hr-fy2014-interior.pdf.

The draft bill is posted on the Senate Committee on Appropriations website at http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/

news/fy14-interior-bill-draft. The explanatory statement also is posted on the committee’s website at

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

intended to serve as a starting point for the Senate debate.5 The largest dollar difference between

the House and Senate Subcommittee drafts was the funding level for EPA in Title II. The Senate

Subcommittee draft bill had included $8.48 billion for EPA, $2.96 billion (53.6%) higher than the

level of $5.52 billion that the House had included in its draft bill.

None of the 12 regular appropriations bills were enacted prior to the start of FY2014.6 Absent

enacted appropriations, a temporary 16-day lapse in discretionary appropriations occurred

between October 1, 2013, and October 16, 2013, resulting in a partial shutdown of the federal

government.7 Enacted on October 17, 2013, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 11346) ended this lapse in funding and provided temporary appropriations generally at FY2013

levels through January 15, 2014. P.L. 113-73 extended appropriations at these levels thereafter

until the enactment of P.L. 113-46 on January 17, 2014, funding federal departments and agencies

for the full fiscal year.8

The following sections of this CRS report present the levels of FY2014 enacted appropriations for

EPA by the nine statutory appropriations accounts that fund the agency, with a breakout within

these accounts for selected programs and activities that have received more prominent attention in

the congressional debate. The discussions and tables presented in this report compare the FY2014

enacted appropriations for these accounts, programs, and activities to the President’s FY2014

budget request and the FY2013 enacted appropriations (post-sequestration and rescission),

including $577.3 million in supplemental funds provided for four EPA accounts in the Disaster

Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-2). These supplemental funds were dedicated to water

infrastructure, cleanup, and other recovery efforts in areas of states affected by Hurricane Sandy

in late October 2012.

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014

(issued in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record)9 is the primary source of information

presented in this CRS report for the FY2014 enacted appropriations and the President’s FY2014

budget request unless otherwise specified.10 The House Committee on Appropriations also

(...continued)

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/fy14-interior-explanatory-statement.

According to a joint statement released by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee, the draft

document was intended to “serve as a meaningful start as discussions continue to finalize a fiscally responsible,

balanced FY 2014 Interior bill”; Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, “Reed and Murkowski Release Draft of

FY2014 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill,” press release, August 1, 2013,

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/reed-and-murkowski-release-draft-fy14-interior-bill.

The House previously considered five regular appropriations bills on the floor and passed four of them; the Senate

began floor consideration of one regular appropriations bill, but no bills were passed; see CRS Report R43338,

Congressional Action on FY2014 Appropriations Measures, by (name redacted).

A funding lapse or “gap” is the interval during the fiscal year when appropriations for a particular project or activity

are not enacted into law, either in the form of a regular appropriations act or a continuing resolution. For further

information, see CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by (name redacted).

For information on the continuing resolutions for FY2014 and earlier fiscal years, see CRS Report R42647,

Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices, by (name redacted).

Congressional Record, January 15, 2014, Book II, pp. H977-H979 and H1010-1017,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-01-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf.

Additional information regarding the FY2014 request was obtained from the EPA’s FY2014 Justification of

Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations (referred to throughout this report as the EPA FY2014

Congressional Justification), available at http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2014, and the President’s Budget of the

United States Government, Fiscal Year 2014, issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

presented the FY2014 enacted amounts in its report (H.Rept. 113-551) accompanying H.R. 5171,

the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015. The

levels of FY2013 enacted appropriations indicated in this CRS report are as presented in EPA’s

FY2013 Operating Plan provided to CRS by the House Committee on Appropriations. These

amounts for FY2013 reflect the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act of

2011 (P.L. 112-25) as amended, and the additional 0.2% across-the-board rescission required

under criteria specified in P.L. 113-6.11 A breakout also is presented for the supplemental funding

provided in P.L. 113-2 (post-sequestration). For a more detailed discussion of EPA’s FY2013

appropriations, see CRS Report R43207, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

Appropriations for FY2013 in P.L. 113-6.

Table A-1 in Appendix A of this report provides a historical comparison of enacted

appropriations (not adjusted for inflation) by EPA appropriations account from FY2008 through

FY2014. Figure A-1 depicts historical funding trends (adjusted for inflation) for the agency

readily available back to FY1976, and Figure A-2 presents EPA’s full-time-equivalent (FTE)

employment ceiling readily available from FY2001 through FY2014. With the exception of the

historical funding presented in Figure A-1 in Appendix A, the enacted appropriations for prior

fiscal years presented throughout this report have not been adjusted for inflation. In some cases,

small increases above the prior-year funding level may reflect a decrease in real dollar values

when adjusted for inflation.

In general, the term appropriations used in this report refers to total discretionary funds made

available to EPA for obligation, including regular fiscal year and emergency supplemental

appropriations, as well as any rescissions, transfers, and deferrals in a particular fiscal year, but

excludes permanent or mandatory appropriations that are not subject to the annual appropriations

process. This latter category of funding constitutes a very small portion of EPA’s annual funding.

The vast majority of the agency’s annual funding consists of discretionary appropriations.

From FY1996 through FY2013, EPA’s appropriations had been requested by the Administration

and appropriated by Congress within eight statutory appropriations accounts. A different account

structure was in place prior to that time.12 P.L. 113-76 added a ninth account for FY2014, the

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund. The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest

Establishment Act (P.L. 112-195) authorized the development of an electronic system to track

hazardous waste shipments and a fund to finance it that would be supported with start-up

appropriations and user fees thereafter. The explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 3547

noted that this dedicated account is intended to support the development of “... a cost-effective IT

system to manage manifest transactions electronically” under Subtitle C of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Solid Waste Disposal Act.13 See Appendix B for more

(...continued)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BUDGET&browsePath=Fiscal+Year+2014&isCol

lapsed=false&leafLevelBrowse=false&isDocumentResults=true&ycord=0.

Section 3004 of P.L. 113-6 directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to apply an across-the-board

rescission, if needed, in addition to sequestration to ensure that the total level of appropriations in FY2013 did not

exceed the discretionary spending caps. Section 3004 did not specify the percentage of this rescission, but directed

OMB to calculate it relative to the amount of appropriations that would exceed the caps otherwise. OMB subsequently

determined that an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% was necessary in FY2013 to remain within the non-security cap.

Prior to FY1996, Congress appropriated funding for EPA under a different account structure, making it difficult to

compare past funding levels by account over the history of the agency.

The Administration had requested appropriations for the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System in FY2013

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

information on the scope of each of the nine statutory appropriations accounts that fund EPA. A

breakout of FY2014 enacted appropriations by each EPA account is presented below.

EPA FY2014 Appropriations by Account

Table 1 presents the levels of FY2014 enacted appropriations for EPA provided in P.L. 113-76

compared to the President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 enacted appropriations (postsequestration and rescission). The FY2013 enacted appropriations include funding provided in

P.L. 113-6 and the $577.3 million in supplemental funds for Hurricane Sandy disaster relief

provided in P.L. 113-2. The table presents a breakout of these amounts for each of the nine EPA

statutory appropriations accounts, including the new Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest

System Fund discussed above. In creating this new account, P.L. 113-76 consolidated funding that

the President had requested within other existing EPA accounts. The table also identifies transfers

of funds between appropriations accounts, and funding levels for selected program areas within

various accounts that have received more prominent attention in the congressional debate.

Figure 1 following the table presents the allocation of the total FY2014 enacted appropriations

among the individual EPA appropriations accounts, compared to the allocation of the FY2013

enacted appropriations (post-sequestration and rescission). Figure 1 presents two comparisons for

the allocations of FY2013 appropriations, one including the Hurricane Sandy disaster relief

supplemental funds provided in P.L. 113-2 and the other excluding the supplemental funds.

As shown in Table 1, the total FY2014 enacted appropriations of $8.20 billion for EPA was $47.0

million (0.6%) more than the President’s FY2014 request of $8.15 billion and $298.9 million

(3.8%) above the FY2013 enacted appropriations of $7.90 billion provided in P.L. 113-6 (postsequestration and rescission). The FY2014 enacted appropriations were $278.4 million (3.3%)

less than the total FY2013 enacted appropriations of $8.48 billion for EPA, when accounting for

the $577.3 million in supplemental funds provided in P.L. 113-2 (post-sequestration).

P.L. 113-76 and the President’s FY2014 request did not include rescissions of unobligated

balances of prior EPA appropriations, as in previous fiscal years beginning in FY2006. For

FY2013, Section 1406 of P.L. 113-6 required a rescission of $50.0 million from unobligated

balances of prior appropriations to the Hazardous Substance Superfund account ($15.0 million)

and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account ($35.0 million). FY2013 rescissions

of unobligated balances specified within the STAG account included $5.0 million from

categorical grants, $10.0 million each from Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving

Fund (SRF) grants, and $10.0 million from Brownfields grants. The President’s FY2013 request

had proposed a $30.0 million rescission of unobligated balances of prior EPA appropriations, but

did not specify which agency accounts would be affected.

Following the table and figure below, this report presents a discussion of the FY2014 enacted

appropriations for selected EPA programs and activities highlighted in the congressional debate.

(...continued)

and FY2014 within existing appropriations accounts. For FY2014, P.L. 113-76 created a dedicated statutory

appropriations account to fund this purpose. See Title II of Division G in the Joint Explanatory Statement for the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76) issued in the January 15, 2014 Congressional Record,

Book II, p. H978-979, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-01-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Table 1. EPA Appropriations by Account: FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014

Request, and FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission)

(millions of dollars)

EPA Appropriation Accounts

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(PostSequester)a

FY2013

Supplemental

P.L. 113-2

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Total

(PostSequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

P.L. 113-76

Science and Technology

—Base Appropriations

$743.8

—

$743.8

$783.9

$759.2

—Transfer in from Superfund

+$21.7

—

+$21.7

+$23.5

+19.2

Science and Technology (with transfers)

$765.5

—

$765.5

$807.5

$778.4

Environmental Programs and Management

$2,511.4

$0.7

$2,512.1

$2,812.8

$2,624.1

N/A

$2.0

$3.7

—Base Appropriations

$39.7

—

$39.7

$45.2

$41.8

—Transfer in from Superfund

+$9.4

—

+$9.4

+$11.1

$9.9

Office of Inspector General (with transfers)

$49.1

—

$49.1

$56.3

$51.8

Buildings and Facilities

$34.5

—

$34.5

$54.4

$34.5

$1,113.3

$1.9

$1,115.2

$1,180.4

$1,088.8

—Transfer out to Office of Inspector General

-$9.4

—

-$9.4

-$11.1

-$9.9

—Transfer out to Science and Technology

-$21.7

—

-$21.7

-$23.5

-$19.2

Hazardous Substance Superfund (after transfers)

$1,082.1

$1.9

$1,084.0

$1,145.8

$1,059.6

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

Program

$98.7

$4.7

$103.4

$99.2

$94.6

Inland Oil Spill Program (formerly Oil Spill

Response)

$17.3

—

$17.3

$21.3

$18.2

—Clean Water State Revolving Fund

$1,376.1

$475.0

$1,851.1

$1,095.0

$1,448.9

—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

$861.3

$95.0

$956.3

$817.0

$906.9

$1,032.0

—

$1,032.0

$1,135.8

$1,054.4

—Brownfields Section 104(k) Grants

$89.9

—

$89.9

$85.0

$90.0

—Diesel Emission Reduction Grants

$18.9

—

$18.9

$6.0

$20.0

—Other State and Tribal Assistance Grants

$14.2

—

$14.2

$15.0

State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total

$3,392.4

$570.0

$3,962.4

$3,153.8

$3,535.2

-$50.0

—

-$50.0

$0.0

$7,901.1

$577.3

$8,478.4

$8,153.0

$8,200.0

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System

Fund

Office of Inspector General

Hazardous Substance Superfund (before

transfers)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)

—Categorical Grants

Rescissions of Unobligated Balancesb

Total EPA Accounts

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The FY2013 enacted appropriations are as reported

in EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan, reflecting the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA;

P.L. 112-25) as amended, and the 0.2% across-the-board rescission under the Consolidated and Further

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). FY2014 requested amounts and enacted amounts are as

presented in the table in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act,

2014 (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76), issued in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-01-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf. Numbers may not add

due to rounding.

FY2013 discretionary appropriations were considered under the BCA as amended, which established,

among other things, a statutory limit on FY2013 discretionary spending and required a sequestration of

FY2013 budgetary resources if necessary to control spending within that limit. Deficit reduction legislation

was not enacted by January 15, 2012, as required by the BCA, triggering an automatic spending reduction

process that consisted of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps, and

ultimately reductions in overall FY2013 funding levels.

Rescissions are from unobligated balances of funds appropriated in prior years. In effect, these “rescissions”

increase the availability of funds for expenditure by the agency in the years in which they are applied,

functioning as an offset to new appropriations by Congress. For FY2013, Section 1406 of Title IV in P.L.

113-6 rescinded unobligated balances from the Hazardous Substance Superfund ($15.0 million) and STAG

($35.0 million) accounts. FY2013 rescissions within the STAG account included $5.0 million from

categorical grants, $10.0 million each from the Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRF grants, and $10.0

million from Brownfields grants. Similar rescissions were not included for FY2014 in the President’s Request

or in P.L. 113-76.

Figure 1. EPA Appropriations by Account: Proportional Comparison of FY2014

Enacted to FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission)

(millions of dollars, before transfers among accounts)

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The FY2013 enacted appropriations (with and

without the supplemental funds) are as reported in EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan, reflecting the application of

sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA; P.L. 112-25) as amended, and the 0.2% across-the-board

rescission required by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). FY2014

enacted amounts are as presented in the table in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76), issued in the January 15, 2014, Congressional

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-01-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15house-bk2.pdf. Percentages may not add due to rounding.

Selected EPA Programs and Activities

Considerable attention during the debate and hearings on the EPA’s appropriations for FY2014

focused on federal financial assistance to states for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure

projects, various categorical grants to states to support general implementation and enforcement

of federal environmental programs as delegated to the states, funding for implementation and

research support for air pollution control requirements, climate change and greenhouse gas

emissions, and funding for environmental cleanup. Also garnering congressional interest were the

funding levels for several geographic-specific initiatives, including the Great Lakes and certain

other inland and coastal bodies of water.

The following sections of this report discuss the levels of FY2014 appropriations for selected

EPA programs and activities within the above areas that received prominent attention in the

congressional debate leading to the enactment of P.L. 113-76. A comprehensive summary of

funding for all EPA programs and activities is beyond the scope of this report. A more detailed

breakout of the FY2014 enacted appropriations is presented in the Joint Explanatory Statement

accompanying H.R. 3547, issued in the Congressional Record on January 15, 2014.14 The EPA

FY2015 congressional budget justification also presents information on FY2014 enacted

appropriations in comparison to the President’s FY2015 budget request.15

Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure

Historically, funding within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account for grants to

aid states and territories in capitalizing their Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving

Funds (SRFs) has represented a sizable portion of the total appropriations for EPA, ranging from

one-fourth to one-third of the agency’s funding in recent fiscal years. The FY2014 funding level

for SRF grants specified in P.L. 113-76 constituted roughly 29% of the total EPA appropriations.

Including the disaster relief supplemental funding provided in P.L. 113-2,16 SRF grants for

FY2013 represented more than 33% of the total appropriations for EPA in FY2014. In contrast,

the President’s FY2014 budget request for the SRF grants represented about 23% of the total

request for EPA. In FY2011 and FY2012, enacted funding for the SRF grants was more than 28%

See the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547, P.L. 11376), issued in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-01-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf.

The EPA FY2015 congressional budget justification and other related budget documents are available on the EPA

website at http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2015.

P.L. 113-2 provided an additional $570.0 million (post-sequester) for FY2013 in disaster relief supplemental

appropriations combined for the Clean Water ($475.0 million) and Drinking Water ($95.0 million) SRFs. These funds

in P.L. 113-2 were allocated to affected areas of New York and New Jersey for improvements to wastewater and

drinking water treatment works and facilities impacted by Hurricane Sandy. Because the funding was directed to areas

affected by this weather event, they were not allocated according to the existing state-by-state allotment formula under

the Clean Water Act for the Clean Water SRF or according to needs surveys under the Safe Drinking Act for the

Drinking Water SRF. See also the EPA May 2, 2013, press release for a summary of these funds awarded to New York

and New Jersey: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/

8a24127bddd6392785257b5f0050595f!OpenDocument.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

of the total appropriations for EPA in those fiscal years, similar to the proportion for FY2013

excluding the disaster relief supplemental funding.

The SRF capitalization grants to states and territories support local wastewater and drinking water

infrastructure projects, such as construction of and modifications to municipal sewage treatment

plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with the Clean Water Act and

the Safe Drinking Water Act,17 respectively.18 EPA awards SRF grants to states and territories

based on formulas.19 P.L. 113-76 appropriated a combined $2.36 billion for the Clean Water and

Drinking Water SRFs for FY2014. The combined total was $443.8 million (23.2%) more than the

President’s FY2014 request of $1.91 billion, and was $118.4 million (5.3%) more than the $2.24

billion enacted for FY2013 (post-sequestration and rescission), excluding the supplemental

appropriations. The FY2014 combined total for the SRFs was $451.6 million (16.1%) less than

the total FY2013 funding level of $2.81 billion when accounting for the $570.0 million in

supplemental appropriations. The combined amount for FY2014 was also less than the FY2012,

FY2011, and FY2010 enacted levels20 (see Table A-1 in Appendix A).

Table 2 presents the FY2014 enacted appropriations for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF

capitalization grants, compared to the President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 enacted

appropriations (post-sequestration and rescission). The table presents a breakout for FY2013 to

identify the disaster relief supplemental appropriations.

Table 2. Appropriations for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(SRF) Capitalization Grants within the EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants

(STAG) Account: FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted

(Post-Sequestration and Rescission)

(millions of dollars)

SRF

Clean Water

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Supplemental

P.L. 113-2

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Total

(PostSequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

P.L. 113-76

$1,376.1

$475.0

$1,851.1

$1,095.0

$1,448.9

Although all of the infrastructure projects in the drinking water needs assessment would promote the health

objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA reports that 10.9% ($42.0 billion) of the long-term funding needs was

attributable to compliance with regulations under the act, while 89% ($342.2 billion) represented nonregulatory costs.

Most nonregulatory funding needs typically involve installing, upgrading, or replacing transmission and distribution

infrastructure to allow a system to continue to deliver safe drinking water. These system problems often do not cause a

violation of a federal drinking water standard, but projects to correct infrastructure problems may be eligible for

Drinking Water SRF funding if needed to address public health risks. Projects attributable to compliance with Safe

Drinking Water Act regulations typically involve the upgrade, replacement, or installation of treatment technologies.

See CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by (name redacted), and

CRS Report RS22037, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Program Overview and Issues, by (name

redacted).

Clean Water SRF capitalization grants are awarded to states according to a statutory formula established in the Clean

Water Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to allocate SRF capitalization grants among the states based on

the proportional share of the states’ needs as identified in the most recent drinking water needs survey.

By comparison, the average annual total funding for the two SRF programs combined during the 12-year period prior

to FY2009 was $2.0 billion.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

SRF

Drinking Water

Total SRF Appropriations

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Supplemental

P.L. 113-2

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Total

(PostSequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

P.L. 113-76

$861.3

$95.0

$956.3

$817.0

$906.9

$2,237.4

$570.0

$2,807.4

$1,912.0

$2,355.8

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The FY2013 enacted appropriations are as reported

in EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan, reflecting the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA;

P.L. 112-25) as amended, and the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). FY2014 requested and enacted amounts are as presented in

the table in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R.

3547, P.L. 113-76) issued in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-01-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf. Numbers may not add

due to rounding.

Water Infrastructure in Geographic-Specific Areas

As in past appropriations, P.L. 113-76 also included funding within the STAG account for

FY2014 to support other water infrastructure projects in two geographic-specific areas: Alaska

Native Villages and the U.S.-Mexico Border region. The FY2014 amount for the construction of

wastewater and drinking water facilities in Alaska Native Villages was $10.0 million, the same as

the President’s FY2014 request. The FY2013 funding level was $9.5 million (post-sequestration

and rescission). The FY2014 enacted appropriations included $5.0 million within the STAG

account for wastewater infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border, the same as the

President’s FY2014 request and slightly more than the FY2013 funding level of $4.7 million

(post-sequestration and rescission).

Categorical Grants to States and Tribes

Another $1.05 billion was included within the STAG account for FY2014 to support state and

tribal “categorical” grant programs, $81.4 million (7.2%) below the President’s FY2014 request

of $1.14 billion, and $22.4 million (2.2%) more than the FY2013 enacted level of $1.03 billion

(post-sequestration and rescission). These funds are allocated among multiple grants generally to

states and tribes to support the day-to-day implementation of federal environmental laws and

regulations and to support various activities that address particular environmental media (air,

water, hazardous waste, etc.). Implementation by states involves a range of activities such as

monitoring, permitting and standard setting, training, and other pollution control and prevention

activities. These grants also assist multimedia projects such as pollution prevention, pesticides

and toxic substances enforcement, the tribal general assistance program, and environmental

information. Categorical grants to assist states and tribes with the implementation of federal air

quality requirements are discussed in more detail in the following section on “Air Quality and

Climate Change Activities.”

Table 3 presents the FY2014 enacted appropriations for EPA categorical grant programs,

compared to the President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 enacted appropriations (postsequestration and rescission).

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Table 3. Appropriations for Categorical Grants within the EPA State and Tribal

Assistance Grants (STAG) Account: FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request,

and FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission)

(millions of dollars)

Categorical Grant Program Area

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(Post-Sequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

P.L. 113-76

Beaches Protection

$9.3

$0.0

$9.5

Brownfields

$46.7

$47.6

$47.7

Environmental Information

$9.4

$21.6

$9.6

Evidence-based Enforcement Grants

$0.0

$4.0

$0.0

Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance

$97.6

$103.0

$99.7

Lead

$13.8

$14.5

$14.0

Nonpoint Source (Clean Water Act §319)

$155.9

$164.5

$159.3

Pesticides Enforcement

$17.7

$18.6

$18.1

Pesticides Program Implementation

$12.4

$13.1

$12.7

Pollution Control (Clean Water Act §106)

$226.0

$258.7

$230.8

Water Quality Monitoring

N/A

$18.5

$17.8

Other Activities

N/A

$240.2

$213.0

Pollution Prevention

$4.7

$4.9

$4.8

Public Water System Supervisions (PWSS)

$99.8

$109.7

$102.0

Radon

$7.6

$0.0

$8.1

$223.4

$257.2

$228.2

Toxic Substances Compliance

$4.8

$5.1

$4.9

Tribal Air Quality Management

$12.6

$13.3

$12.8

Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP)

$64.1

$72.6

$65.5

Underground Injection Control (UIC)

$10.3

$10.9

$10.5

Underground Storage Tanks

$1.5

Wetlands Program Development

$14.4

$15.1

$14.7

$1,032.0

$1,135.8

$1,054.4

State and Local Air Quality Management

Total Categorical Grants

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The FY2013 enacted appropriations are as reported

in EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan, reflecting the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA;

P.L. 112-25) as amended, and the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). FY2014 requested and enacted amounts are as presented in

the table in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R.

3547, P.L. 113-76) issued in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-01-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf. Numbers may not add

due to rounding.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Air Quality and Climate Change Activities

Several EPA air quality and climate change activities received attention during the consideration

of FY2014 appropriations. Many of these activities are associated with regulations under the

Clean Air Act to address emissions of greenhouse gases, hazardous air pollutants such as mercury,

and particulate matter.21 Although generally not included in P.L. 113-76, the draft FY2014

appropriations bill considered by the House Committee on Appropriations during its markup that

was suspended on July 31, 2013,22 included a number of provisions that would have limited or

restricted EPA’s use of FY2014 funds to support the development, implementation, or

enforcement of various Clean Air Act regulations, as well as directives for conducting evaluations

of certain activities and providing reports to the committee. Some of these provisions were similar

to those included for FY2012 in Division E of P.L. 112-74, and a subset of those proposed during

deliberations on the FY2013, FY2012, and FY2011 EPA appropriations.23

P.L. 113-76 included two general provisions in Title IV of Division G preventing EPA from using

any funds provided in the act for two specific air quality regulatory activities related to

greenhouse gas emissions. Section 420 addressed regulations for the issuance of permits under

Title V of the Clean Air Act that would govern greenhouse gas emissions from biological

processes associated with livestock production. Section 421 addressed reporting requirements for

greenhouse gas emissions associated with manure management systems. Additionally, Title II of

Division G of the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying P.L. 113-76 contained a number of

directives regarding EPA. Two directives addressed air quality and climate change program

activities related to regional haze and the role of states in Clean Air Act implementation.24

EPA is one of 17 federal agencies that have received appropriations for climate change activities

in recent fiscal years. EPA’s share of this funding is relatively small, but EPA’s policy and

regulatory roles are proportionately larger than other federal agencies and departments.

Appropriated funds for EPA’s climate change and air quality activities are distributed across

several program activities under multiple appropriations accounts. Because of variability in these

activities and modifications to account structures from year to year, it is difficult to compare the

overall combined funding included in appropriations bills with the President’s request25 and prior21

CRS Report R42895, Clean Air Issues in the 113th Congress: An Overview, by (name redacted); see also CRS

Report R41561, EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?, by (name redacted) and (name redacted),

for a discussion of selected EPA regulatory actions.

The markup focused on the draft legislative text and accompanying draft committee report language approved on

July 23, 2013, by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, previously

posted on the House Committee on Appropriations website at http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills113hr-fc-ap-fy2014-ap00-interior.pdf, as was the draft committee report also posted on the Committee website at

http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hrpt-113-hr-fy2014-interior.pdf.

Congress has addressed EPA’s development of Clean Air Act regulations through the appropriations process in the

past—either explicitly providing or restricting the availability of agency funds for such purposes—and these issues

were debated extensively during the FY2013, FY2012, and FY2011 appropriations process. See CRS Report R42520,

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress, coordinated

by (name redacted), CRS Report R42332, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations, by (name r

edacted), and CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions, by (name redacted).

Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76) as

issued in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, p. H979, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-201401-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf.

Although Congress does not appropriate funding based on EPA’s strategic performance goals, the President’s

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

year enacted appropriations. However, comparisons can be made among certain activities for

which Congress does specify a line-item in the appropriations process.26

Table 4 presents the FY2014 enacted appropriations for EPA air quality and climate change

activities by account for which a breakout is readily available. The table presents a comparison of

these amounts to the President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 enacted appropriations (postsequestration and rescission).

As presented in the table, EPA “clean air and climate” activities constitute the single largest air

quality program area funded within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and

Science and Technology (S&T) accounts. The total FY2014 enacted appropriation for this

program area was $397.9 million within these two accounts combined, $36.4 million (8.4%) less

than the President’s FY2014 request of $434.3 million, but $11.7 million (3.0%) more than the

FY2013 enacted appropriation of $386.2 million (post-sequestration and rescission).

State and Local Air Quality Management grants are the single-largest air quality activity funded

within the STAG account. The FY2014 enacted appropriation for these grants was $228.2

million, $29.0 million (11.3%) less than the President’s FY2014 request of $257.2 million, but

$4.8 million (2.1%) more than the FY2013 enacted appropriation of $223.4 million (postsequestration and rescission). States use these grants to help pay the costs of operating air

pollution control programs. Much of the day-to-day operations of these programs (i.e.,

monitoring, permitting, enforcement, and developing site-specific regulations) are done by the

state and local agencies with Clean Air Act authorities delegated by EPA.

The STAG account also included $20.0 million for FY2014 for the Diesel Emission Reduction

Grants program, $14.0 million (233.3%) more than the President’s FY2014 request of $6.0

million, and $1.1 million (5.8%) more than the FY2013 enacted appropriation of $18.9 million

(post-sequestration and rescission). Funding for these grants has declined overall in comparison

to prior fiscal years. The FY2012 enacted level was $30.0 million. The American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) had provided an additional $300.0 million in supplemental

funds for these grants in FY2009 for a total of $360.0 million in that fiscal year, much of which

was awarded in FY2010. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)27 originally had

authorized $200.0 million annually for these grants from FY2007 through FY2011.

P.L. 113-76 included $8.1 million for state indoor radon (categorical) grants within the STAG

account, a slight increase above the FY2013 enacted appropriation of $7.6 million (postsequestration and rescission). As proposed in the FY2013 request, the FY2014 President’s request

again had proposed eliminating the state indoor radon grant program, based on the

(...continued)

FY2014 request included $1.07 billion for FY2014 across multiple appropriations accounts to support the agency’s

strategic objective: “Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality,” see EPA’s FY2014 Congressional

Justification, pp. 11-22, http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2014.

It is difficult to compare the FY2013 funding levels for all program activities with previous fiscal years’

appropriations, as, from year to year, EPA has sometimes modified the line-items under which funding for climateprotection-related program activities is requested. For example, for FY2012, the conferees accepted the

Administration’s proposed budget reorganization of certain air quality and climate protection program activities,

including consolidation and modifications of various line-items, making it difficult to compare FY2012 appropriations

with FY2011 (and prior year) appropriations.

Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58, Title VII, Subtitle G.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Administration’s position that states had established the necessary technical expertise and

program funding to continue radon protection efforts without federal funding.28 Congress has

continued to appropriate funds to provide this financial assistance to states.

Table 4. Appropriations for Selected EPA Air Quality Research and Implementation

Activities by Account: FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013

Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission)

(millions of dollars)

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(Post-Sequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 113-76)

$118.1

$126.0

$120.4

Clean Air Allowance Trading Program

$8.6

$9.6

$8.6a

Climate Protection Program

$15.9

$8.3

Federal Support for Air Quality Management

$6.7

$7.7

$7.0a

Federal Vehicle & Fuels Standards & Certification

$86.9

$100.4

$96.5a

Indoor Air and Radiation

$6.3

$6.7

$6.4

Indoor Air: Radon Program

$0.2

$0.0

$0.2a

Reduce Risks from Indoor Air

$0.4

$0.3a

Radiation: Protection

$2.0

$2.1

$2.1a

Radiation: Response Preparedness

$3.8

$4.1

$3.8a

Research: Air, Climate, and Energy

$92.9

$105.7

$95.0

Global Change

N/A

$20.4

N/A

Clean Air

N/A

$83.2

N/A

Other Activities

N/A

$2.1

N/A

Clean Air and Climate

$268.1

$308.3

$277.5

Clean Air Allowance Trading Program

$19.8

$20.5

$19.6a

Climate Protection Program:

$92.2

$106.2

$95.4

- Climate Protection Program: Energy STAR

N/A

$52.9

N/A

- Climate Protection Program: Methane to Markets

N/A

$4.8

N/A

- Climate Protection Program: Greenhouse Gas Registry

N/A

$18.9

N/A

- Climate Protection Program: Other Activities

N/A

$29.6

N/A

Federal Stationary Source Regulations

$25.3

$34.1

$26.5a

Federal Support for Air Quality Management

$116.7

$132.8

$121.8a

N/A

$0.0

N/A

EPA Account/Program Area

Science and Technology Account

Clean Air and Climate

Environmental Programs and Management

Federal Support for Air Toxics Program

See references to the state indoor radon grant program in EPA’s FY2014 Congressional Justification, pp. viii, 15,

827-828 (http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2014).

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(Post-Sequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 113-76)

Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs

$5.2

$5.0

$5.1a

Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund

$9.0

$9.7

$9.0a

Indoor Air and Radiation

$31.0

$33.2

$28.1

Indoor Air: Radon Program

$3.6

$2.3

$2.4a

Radiation: Protection

$8.9

$10.6

$8.7a

Radiation: Response Preparedness

$2.8

$3.1

$2.5a

Reduce Risks from Indoor Air

$15.6

$17.2

$14.5a

$2.3

$2.5

$2.0

Diesel Emissions Reduction Grants

(Energy Policy Act)

$18.9

$6.0

$20.0

Radon

$7.6

$0.0

$8.1

State & Local Air Quality Management Grants

$223.4

$257.2

$228.2

Tribal Air Quality Management Grants

$12.6

$13.3

$12.8

EPA Account/Program Area

Hazardous Substance Superfund Account

Indoor Air and Radiation: Radiation Protection

State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The FY2013 enacted appropriations are as reported

in EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan, reflecting the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA;

P.L. 112-25) as amended, and the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). FY2014 requested and enacted amounts are as presented in

the table in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R.

3547, P.L. 113-76) issued in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-01-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf. Numbers may not add

due to rounding.

Note: Budget reorganization for certain air quality and climate program activities, including consolidation and

modifications of various line-items, makes it difficult to compare appropriations for these activities across past

fiscal years.

The FY2014 Explanatory Statement did not specify funding amounts for these sub-program activities.

Amounts presented are as reported in EPA’s FY2015 Congressional Justification, http://www2.epa.gov/

planandbudget/fy2014; EPA’s total funding amounts match those reported in the Explanatory Statement.

Cleanup of Superfund Sites

The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account supports the assessment and cleanup of

sites contaminated from the release of hazardous substances. EPA carries out these activities

under the Superfund program. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) authorized this program, and established the Superfund Trust

Fund to finance discretionary appropriations to fund it.29 P.L. 113-76 included a total of $1.09

billion for the Superfund account in FY2014 prior to transfers to other EPA accounts, $91.6

million (7.8%) less than the President’s FY2014 request of $1.18 billion, and $26.4 million

(2.4%) less than the FY2013 enacted appropriations of $1.12 billion (post-sequestration and

42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

rescission). The total funding level for FY2013 included $1.9 million in disaster relief

supplemental appropriations (post-sequestration) provided in P.L. 113-2 for Superfund sites

affected by Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey.

The FY2014 and FY2013 enacted appropriations reflect an overall downward funding trend since

FY2010 (see Table A-1 in Appendix A). For the previous decade, annual funding levels for the

Superfund account had remained fairly steady, averaging approximately $1.25 billion annually.30

However, some have observed that the funding levels declined during this period when

accounting for the effects of inflation.

As amended, CERCLA authorizes EPA’s Superfund program to clean up sites that are among the

nation’s most hazardous and to enforce the liability of parties who are responsible for the cleanup

costs.31 Many states also have developed their own cleanup programs to address contaminated

sites that are not pursued at the federal level. These state programs complement federal cleanup

efforts. At sites that are addressed under the federal Superfund program, EPA first attempts to

identify the responsible parties to enforce their liability for the cleanup costs. Sites financed by

the responsible parties do not rely upon Superfund appropriations, except for situations in which

EPA may use the appropriations up front and later recover the costs from the responsible parties.

If the responsible parties cannot be found or do not have the ability to pay, EPA is authorized to

use Superfund appropriations to pay for the cleanup of a site under a cost-share agreement with

the state in which the site is located.32 Sites at which there are no viable parties to assume

responsibility for the cleanup are referred to as “orphan” sites.

The use of Superfund appropriations has focused primarily on cleaning up contamination from

the release of hazardous substances at high-risk sites that EPA has placed on the National

Priorities List (NPL).33 The cleanup of federal facilities on the NPL is funded apart from the

Superfund program by the federal agencies that administer those facilities.34 Annual funding for

the cleanup of all contaminated federal facilities combined exceeds EPA’s Superfund

appropriations by several billion dollars. Although Superfund appropriations are not eligible to

pay for the cleanup of federal facilities, EPA oversees their cleanup through the Superfund

program in conjunction with the states in which the facilities are located.

Just over half of the Superfund account is allocated to the performance of response actions at nonfederal facilities that are elevated for federal attention. CERCLA authorizes two types of response

actions. Remedial actions are intended to address long-term risks to human health and the

environment, whereas removal actions are intended to address more imminent hazards or

emergency situations. Removal actions may precede remedial actions to stabilize site conditions

while long-term measures are developed. Only sites listed on the NPL are eligible for Superfund

FY2009 was an exception to this trend, with $600.0 million in supplemental funds provided in ARRA (P.L. 111-5).

For more information on EPA’s cleanup and enforcement authorities under CERCLA, see CRS Report R41039,

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup

Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by (name redacted).

State cost-share requirements apply only to the performance of long-term remedial actions, but not to short-term

removal actions that address more imminent hazards and emergency situations.

For information on the number of sites that EPA has placed on the NPL over time and their listing status, see the

Superfund Program website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/status.htm.

The use of cleanup appropriations at federal facilities generally has been limited to the performance of the cleanup

itself. The Judgment Fund administered by the U.S. Treasury has been the source of monies for the payment of claims

for cleanup liability that may be submitted against the United States at sites where a federal agency is a liable party.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

appropriations to pay for remedial actions, whereas removal actions may be funded with

Superfund appropriations regardless of whether a site is listed on the NPL.35

The remainder of the Superfund account funds EPA’s homeland security responsibilities to

prepare for the federal response to incidents that may involve the intentional release of hazardous

substances, EPA’s operational and administrative expenses in carrying out the Superfund

program, and EPA’s enforcement of cleanup liability under CERCLA. Enforcement is a core tenet

of the statute intended to ensure that the responsible parties pay for the cleanup of contamination

whenever possible, in order to focus the use of Superfund appropriations at orphan sites.

Historically, funding within the Superfund account also has been transferred to EPA’s Science and

Technology account for the research and development of cleanup technologies, and to EPA’s

Office of Inspector General account for independent auditing, evaluation, and investigation of the

Superfund program. Annual appropriations acts typically have included statutory language

authorizing these transfers.

Table 5 presents the FY2014 enacted appropriations for the Superfund account by major program

area, compared to the President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 enacted appropriations (postsequestration and rescission). A breakout of the FY2013 enacted appropriations is provided for

the disaster relief supplemental appropriations provided in P.L. 113-2. The net total for the

Superfund account also is presented after the transfers to the Science and Technology and Office

of Inspector General accounts.

Table 5. Appropriations for the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund Account:

FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted (PostSequestration and Rescission)

(millions of dollars)

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Supplemental

P.L. 113-2

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Total

(PostSequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 11376)

Remedial

$506.7

$539.1

$500.0

Emergency Response and

Removal

$179.1

$187.8

$177.8

Emergency Preparedness

$8.8

$8.2

Federal Facilities (Oversight)

$24.8

$26.9

$21.1

Enforcement

$176.7

$185.3

$175.5

Operations and Administration

$127.3

$137.5

$120.5

Homeland Security

$37.3

$42.0

$38.1

Other Program Areas

$52.6

$53.7

$47.6

$1,113.3

$1.9

$1,115.2

$1,180.4

$1,088.8

Program Area and

Transfers to Other EPA

Accounts

Total Superfund Account

40 C.F.R. §300.425(b).

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Supplemental

P.L. 113-2

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Total

(PostSequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 11376)

Transfer to Science and

Technology

-$21.7

-$23.6

-$19.2

Transfer to Office of Inspector

General

-$9.4

-$11.1

-$9.9

$1,082.1

$1.9

$1,084.0

$1,145.8

$1,059.6

Program Area and

Transfers to Other EPA

Accounts

Superfund Account After

Transfers

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The FY2013 enacted appropriations are as reported

in EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan, reflecting the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA;

P.L. 112-25) as amended, and the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). FY2014 requested and enacted amounts are as presented in

the table in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R.

3547, P.L. 113-76) issued in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-01-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf. Numbers may not add

due to rounding.

Brownfields

EPA also administers another cleanup program to provide financial assistance to state, local, and

tribal governmental entities for certain types of sites, referred to as “brownfields.” Sites eligible

for this assistance tend to be sites where the known or suspected presence of contamination may

present an impediment to economic development, but where the risks generally are not high

enough for the site to be addressed under the Superfund program or other related cleanup

authorities. Consistent with liability under CERCLA, responsible parties at these brownfields

sites are not eligible for this federal financial assistance, as they are to be held accountable for the

cleanup costs. Accordingly, the Brownfields program focuses on providing federal financial

assistance for “orphan” sites at which the potential need for cleanup remains unaddressed.36

EPA’s Brownfields program awards two different categories of grants, one competitive and one

formula-based. Section 104(k) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to award competitive grants to state,

local, and tribal governmental entities for the assessment and remediation (i.e., cleanup) of

eligible brownfields sites, job training for cleanup workers, and technical assistance.37 Section

128 authorizes EPA to award formula-based grants to help states and tribes enhance their own

similar cleanup programs. These grants are funded within the STAG account, whereas EPA’s

expenses to administer the Brownfields program are funded within the Environmental Programs

and Management (EPM) account.

P.L. 113-76 provided a total of $163.7 million for EPA’s Brownfields program in FY2014, $5.1

million (3.2%) more than the President’s FY2014 request of $158.6 million and $5.5 million

(3.5%) more than the FY2013 enacted appropriations of $158.2 million (post-sequestration and

For more information on the scope and purpose of this program, see the “Brownfields Properties” section in CRS

Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund

Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by (name redacted).

Nonprofit organizations also may be eligible for site-specific remediation (i.e., cleanup) grants, subject to a

determination by EPA based on certain statutory criteria.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

rescission). Table 6 presents the FY2014 enacted appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields program

broken out by type of grant and program administrative expenses, compared to the President’s

FY2014 request and the FY2013 enacted appropriations.

Table 6. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program: FY2014 Enacted, President’s

FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and Rescission)

(millions of dollars)

EPA Account/Program Area

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(PostSequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 113-76)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Section 104(k) Competitive Project Grantsa

$89.9

$85.0

$90.0

Section 128 Categorical Grants to States and Tribesb

$46.7

$47.6

$47.7

Brownfields STAG Grant Total

$136.6

$132.6

$137.7

EPA Administrative Expenses

$21.6

$26.0

Brownfields Program Total

$158.2

$158.6

$163.7

Environmental Programs and Management

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The FY2013 enacted appropriations are as reported in

EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan, reflecting the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA; P.L.

112-25) as amended, and the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by the Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). FY2014 requested and enacted amounts are as presented in the table in the

Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76) issued

in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-201401-15/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Section 104(k) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to award competitive grants to eligible entities for the

assessment or remediation (i.e., cleanup) of brownfields to prepare them for redevelopment, job training

for cleanup workers, and technical assistance.

Section 128 of CERCLA authorizes EPA to award grants to states and tribes on a formula basis to establish

or enhance their own cleanup programs.

Underground Storage Tanks38

Under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, EPA’s Office of Underground Storage Tanks

addresses the cleanup of releases from underground storage tanks (USTs) containing petroleum or

oxygenated fuels (e.g., ethanol) and administers regulations to prevent leaks from underground

storage tanks containing petroleum or hazardous substances.39 These activities are supported by a

combination of appropriations from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund

and appropriations within the EPM and STAG accounts funded with revenues from the General

Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund provide most of the funding

and are used by the states and EPA to perform or enforce corrective actions to clean up

For additional background information, see CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (USTs):

Prevention and Cleanup, by (name redacted).

For additional information on these activities, see the EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks website:

http://www.epa.gov/oust/.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

contamination from petroleum leaks, and to enforce leak detection and prevention requirements.

Appropriations within the EPM and STAG accounts are available for certain other regulatory and

support activities.

P.L. 113-76 appropriated $94.6 million from the LUST Trust Fund to EPA for FY2014, $4.6

million (4.6%) less than the President’s FY2014 request of $99.2 million and $8.8 million (8.5%)

less than the FY2013 enacted appropriations of $103.4 million (post-sequestration and

rescission). The funding level for FY2013 included $4.8 million (post-sequestration) in disaster

relief supplemental appropriations provided in P.L. 113-2 to address problems with leaking

underground storage tanks in areas of states affected by Hurricane Sandy.

P.L. 113-76 provided $12.7 million for FY2014 within the EPM account to support EPA staff and

extramural costs of efforts to prevent releases from underground storage tanks.40 The FY2014

enacted level for this activity is somewhat more than the President’s FY2014 request of $12.3

million and the FY2013 enacted appropriations of $12.1 million (post-sequestration and

rescission). P.L. 113-76 provided $1.5 million within the STAG account, roughly the same as the

President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 enacted appropriations (post-sequestration and

rescission).

Congress established the LUST Trust Fund to provide a dedicated source of funds for EPA and

the states to enforce corrective actions by UST owners or operators responsible for releases;

conduct cleanups where no responsible party has been identified, where a responsible party fails

to comply with a cleanup order, or in the event of an emergency; and take cost recovery actions

against the parties.41 EPA and the states have generally been successful in getting responsible

parties to perform most cleanups. Historically, the states have used the bulk of their annual LUST

Trust Fund monies (provided through cooperative agreements with EPA) to oversee and enforce

corrective actions performed by tank owners and operators using their own funds.

The LUST Trust Fund is financed by a 0.1 cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax. The balance has been

declining through redirection of these funds for surface transportation projects via a transfer to the

federal Highway Trust Fund. Section 40201 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st

Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141) had transferred $2.4 billion from the LUST Trust Fund to

the federal Highway Trust Fund in FY2012 to increase resources for federal surface

transportation spending. MAP-21 also extended the financing rate for the LUST Trust Fund

through September 30, 2016.

Section 2002 of the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-159, H.R. 5021)

authorizes the transfer of an additional $1 billion from the LUST Trust Fund to the Highway Trust

Fund.42 Prior to this second transfer, OMB had estimated that $1.35 billion would have been

available for appropriation from the LUST Trust Fund, as of the beginning of FY2015.43

EPA is developing regulations to update existing underground storage tank requirements and add new requirements

for secondary containment and operator training as needed to implement provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

See 76 Federal Register 71708, November 18, 2011. For information on the status of this regulatory proposal, see

EPA’s website: http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/proposedregs.html.

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended (42 U.S.C. §6991-6991m).

For a summary of this legislation, CRS Report R43420, Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for

Congress, by (name redacted) et al.

Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, March 4, 2014, p.

1176, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/epa.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Although these transfers reduce the availability of monies from the LUST Trust Fund for

purposes authorized in Subtitle I, the receipts have outpaced the levels of annual discretionary

appropriations over time, resulting in the balance growing faster than the use of the funds.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005; P.L. 109-58) expanded the UST leak prevention

provisions under Subtitle I and imposed new responsibilities on the states and EPA, such as

requiring states to inspect all tanks every three years. EPAct also broadened the authorized uses of

the LUST Trust Fund to support state implementation of most leak prevention and detection

requirements, in addition to supporting the LUST cleanup program. Congress now appropriates

monies from the trust fund to support both cleanup and underground storage tank leak prevention

and detection regulations. Before EPAct 2005, the regulation of underground storage tanks to

prevent and detect leaks had been supported entirely from general revenues. As noted above, a

relatively small portion of the funding is now derived from general revenues.

Table 7 presents the FY2014 enacted appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund to EPA, and

within the EPM and STAG accounts, to support the cleanup and UST leak prevention and

detection activities, compared to the President’s FY2014 request and the FY2013 enacted

appropriations (post-sequestration and rescission), with a breakout for the disaster relief

supplemental appropriations provided in P.L. 113-2.

Table 7. EPA Appropriations for Cleanup and Regulation of Underground Storage

Tanks: FY2014 Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted (PostSequestration and Rescission)

(millions of dollars)

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Supplemental

P.L. 113-2

(PostSequester)

FY2013

Total

(PostSequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 113-76)

EPAct Provisions

$28.9

—

$28.9

$25.6

Cleanup and Related Activities

$69.8

—

$74.5

$70.3

$68.9

Total LUST Trust Fund Account

$98.7

$4.8

$103.4

$99.2

$94.6

$12.1

—

$12.1

$12.3

$12.7

$1.5

—

$1.5

EPA Account/Program Area

LUST Trust Fund Account

EPM Account

Underground Storage Tanks

(LUST/UST)

STAG Account

Categorical Grant: UST

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The FY2013 enacted appropriations are as reported in

EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan, reflecting the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA; P.L. 11225) as amended, and the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by the Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). FY2014 requested and enacted amounts are as presented in the table in the

Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76) issued

in the January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-0115/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs

The EPM account includes funding for several ecosystem restoration programs to address water

quality and sources of pollution associated with environmental and human health risks in a

number of geographic-specific areas of the United States. These programs often involve

collaboration among EPA, other federal agencies, state and local governments, communities, and

nonprofit organizations. Table 8 presents the FY2014 enacted appropriations for EPA geographicspecific ecosystem restoration programs, compared to the President’s FY2014 request and the

FY2013 enacted appropriations (post-sequestration and rescission). Efforts to restore the Great

Lakes and Chesapeake Bay have received the largest portions of this funding, discussed below.

Table 8. Appropriations for Selected Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs

within the EPA Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) Account: FY2014

Enacted, President’s FY2014 Request, and FY2013 Enacted (Post-Sequestration and

Rescission)

(millions of dollars)

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(Post-Sequester)

FY2014

President’s

Request

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 113-76)

Water: Ecosystems Total

$43.7

$54.9

$46.2

National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways

$23.7

$27.2

$25.1

Wetlands

$20.0

$27.7

$21.1

Geographic Programs Total

$388.1

$410.9

$415.7

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

$283.7

$300.0

Chesapeake Bay Program

$54.3

$73.0

$70.0

San Francisco Bay

$5.5

$4.8

Puget Sound

$28.4

$17.2

$25.0

South Florida

$1.9

$1.7

Long Island Sound Program

$3.7

$2.9

$3.9

Gulf of Mexico Program

$5.2

$4.5

Lake Champlain Basin Program

$2.3

$1.4

Not Reported

$0.9

Southern New England Estuaries

$0.0

$2.0

Community Action for Renewed Environment (CARE)

$0.0

$1.0

$0.0

Other Geographic Programs and Regional Initiatives

$3.1

$1.4

$431.8

$465.8

$461.9

Program within the EPM Account

Lake Pontchartrain

All Selected Programs

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The FY2013 enacted appropriations are as reported

in EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan, reflecting the application of sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA;

P.L. 112-25) as amended, and the 0.2% across-the-board rescission required by the Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). Line-item for Lake Pontchartrain not reported for FY2013.

FY2014 requested and enacted amounts are as presented in the table in the Joint Explanatory Statement

accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76) issued in the January 15,

2014, Congressional Record, Book II, pp. H1010-H1017, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-0115/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

In 2004, President Bush established a Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, chaired by EPA,44 to

develop a strategy (released in 2005) that would guide federal Great Lakes protection and

restoration efforts under existing law. In furtherance of this strategy, President Obama proposed

the establishment of a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in FY2010, which Congress

subsequently approved in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

2010 (P.L. 111-88). The initiative is intended to improve coordination among existing federal

programs and projects administered by EPA and eight other federal agencies. The purpose of the

initiative is to target the most significant problems in the ecosystem, such as aquatic invasive

species, nonpoint source pollution, and toxics and contaminated sediment.45 Projects and

programs are to be implemented through grants and cooperative agreements with states, tribes,

municipalities, universities, and other organizations.

The initiative consolidates funding for a number of existing federal Great Lakes programs,

including EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office, the agency’s implementation of the Great

Lakes Legacy Act to clean up contaminated sediments, and Great Lakes programs administered

by other federal agencies. As the President had requested for FY2010, P.L. 111-88 initially

appropriated $475 million to EPA to establish the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. EPA was

responsible for allocating a portion of these funds among its own Great Lakes programs and the

Great Lakes programs administered by other federal agencies. Since FY2010, Congress has

continued to appropriate funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to EPA for allocation

among the participating federal agencies, but at lower levels.

As indicated in Table 8 above, $300.0 million was provided for FY2014 for the Great Lakes

Restoration Initiative within the EPM account, the same as the President’s FY2014 request and

$16.3 million (5.7%) more than the FY2013 enacted appropriations of $283.7 million (postsequestration and rescission).

Chesapeake Bay

In May 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and

Restoration, which directed federal departments and agencies to exercise greater leadership in

implementing their existing authorities to restore the bay. Despite restoration efforts of the past 25

years, which have resulted in some successes in specific parts of the ecosystem, the overall health

of the bay remains degraded by excessive levels of nutrients and sediment. As indicated in Table

8 above, $70.0 million was appropriated for EPA’s Chesapeake Bay program for FY2014, $3.0

million (4.1%) less than the President’s FY2014 request of $73.0 million, and $15.7 million

(28.9%) more than the FY2013 enacted appropriations of $54.3 million (post-sequestration and

rescission).

The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force was established by executive order in 2004. For more information, see

EPA’s website: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/iatf/index.html.

For more information, see the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative website: http://greatlakesrestoration.us/.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

National (Congressional) Priorities and Earmarks

P.L. 113-76 included a total of $16.9 million for “National Priorities” within the Science and

Technology (S&T) and the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) accounts for

FY2014, roughly the same amount appropriated for this purpose for FY2013 (post-sequestration

and rescission). As in previous fiscal years, the President’s FY2014 request did not include

funding for these priorities, which the Administration has characterized as “Congressional

Priorities” because it has not sought funds for these purposes.

Of the $16.9 million total, $4.2 million was included within the S&T account for FY2014 for

“Research: National Priorities.” These funds were to be used for competitive extramural research

grants to support high-priority water quality and availability research of national scope by “notfor-profit organizations who often partner with the Agency.” The grants were subject to a 25%

matching funds requirement.46

The remaining $12.7 million was included within the EPM account for FY2014 for

“Environmental Protection: National Priorities.” These funds were to be used for competitive

grants to qualified not-for-profit organizations to provide rural and urban communities or

individual private well owners with technical assistance to improve water quality or safe drinking

water. The grants were subject to a 10% matching funds requirement (including in-kind

contributions). Of the $12.7 million, $11.0 million was allocated for training and technical

assistance on a national level, or multi-state regional basis, and $1.7 million was allocated for

technical assistance to individual private well owners.47

Although Congress has dedicated funding for these “National” or “Congressional” priorities, they

have not been categorized as earmarks by the House or Senate generally because the language

would not direct the funding to one specific entity or specific location and the funding would be

awarded on a competitive basis. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have adhered

to an earmark moratorium during the 112th and 113th Congress as put forth by the leadership in

both chambers. This moratorium generally has precluded earmarks in annual appropriations bills

for FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014. The moratorium followed the adoption of

definitions of earmarks in House and Senate rules. While there is no consensus on a single

earmark definition among all practitioners and observers of the appropriations process, the Senate

and House both in 2007 adopted separate definitions for purposes of implementing new earmark

transparency requirements in their respective chambers.48 In the House rule, such a funding item

is referred to as a congressional earmark (or earmark), while, in the Senate rule, it is referred to

as a congressionally directed spending item (or spending item).49

January 15, 2014, Congressional Record, Book II, p. H977, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-0115/pdf/CREC-2014-01-15-house-bk2.pdf.

Ibid., p.H978 .

See Senate Rule XLIV and House Rule XXI, clause 9. CRS Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules

Concerning Earmark Disclosure, by (name redacted), describes and compares the procedures and requirements in House

and Senate rules. See also CRS Report RS22866, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee

Requirements, by (name redacted), and CRS Report RS22867, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the Senate: Member and

Committee Requirements, by (name redacted).

In both cases, this refers to “a provision [in a measure or conference report] or report language included primarily at

the request of a [Representative or] Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of

discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant,

loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific state, locality or Congressional district,

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Appendix A. Historical Funding Trends and

Staffing Levels

The Nixon Administration established EPA in 1970 in response to growing public concern about

environmental pollution, consolidating federal pollution control responsibilities that had been

divided among several federal agencies. Congress has enacted an increasing number of

environmental laws, as well as major amendments to these statutes, over three decades following

EPA’s creation.50 Annual appropriations provide the funds necessary for EPA to carry out its

responsibilities under these laws, such as the regulation of air and water quality, use of pesticides

and toxic substances, management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and cleanup of

environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state, tribal, and local

governments in controlling pollution in order to comply with federal environmental requirements,

and to help fund the implementation and enforcement of federal laws and regulations delegated to

the states and tribes. Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA programs and activities within the

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies annual appropriations bill.51

The statutory authorization of appropriations for many of the programs and activities

administered by EPA has expired, but Congress has continued to fund them through the

appropriations process. Although House and Senate rules generally do not allow the appropriation

of funding that has not been authorized, these rules are subject to points of order and are not selfenforcing. Congress may appropriate funding for a program or activity for which the

authorization of appropriations has expired, if no Member raises a point of order, or the rules are

waived for consideration of a particular bill.52 Congress typically has done so to continue the

appropriation of funding for EPA programs and activities for which the authorization of

appropriations has expired, but may opt not to fund an unauthorized program or activity.53

Table A-1 presents the level of FY2008-FY2014 enacted appropriations for EPA by each of the

agency’s statutory accounts. Figure A-1 presents a history of total discretionary budget authority

for EPA from FY1976 through FY2014, as reported by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) in the “Historical Tables” accompanying the President’s Budget of the U.S. Government,

(...continued)

other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.” Senate Rule XLIV and

House Rule XXI, clause 9.

For a discussion of these laws, see CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes

Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by (name redacted).

The 109th Congress moved EPA’s funding from the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations

Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies to the Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations. This

change resulted from the abolition of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs,

Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies.

See CRS Report RS20371, Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process, by (name redacted), and CRS

Report R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

As amended, Section 202(e)(3) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to report to Congress annually on the enacted appropriations for individual

programs and activities for which the authorization of appropriations has expired, and individual programs and

activities for which the authorization of appropriations is set to expire in the current fiscal year. The most recent version

of this report is available on CBO’s website at http://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget/unauthorized-appropriations-andexpiring-authorizations.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Fiscal Year 2015.54 Levels of agency budget authority prior to FY1976 were not reported by

OMB in the Historical Tables. In Figure A-1, discretionary budget authority is presented in

nominal dollars as reported by OMB, and adjusted for inflation by CRS to reflect the trend in real

dollar values over time.

EPA’s funding over the long term generally has reflected an increase in overall appropriations to

fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities. EPA’s historical funding trends tend to parallel

the evolution of the agency’s responsibilities over time, as Congress has enacted legislation to

authorize the agency to develop and administer programs and activities in response to a range of

environmental issues and concerns. In terms of the overall federal budget, EPA’s annual

appropriations have represented a relatively small portion of the total discretionary federal budget

(just under 1% in recent years).

Without adjusting for inflation, EPA’s funding has grown from $1.0 billion when EPA was

established in FY1970 to a peak funding level of $14.86 billion in FY2009. This peak includes

regular fiscal year appropriations of $7.64 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-8 and the

supplemental appropriations of $7.22 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-5, the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. However, in real dollar values (adjusted for inflation),

EPA’s funding in FY1978 was slightly more than the level in FY2009, as presented in Figure A1.

See Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 5.4, Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.

Congressional Research Service

Table A-1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): FY2008-FY2014 Enacted

(millions of dollars not adjusted for inflation)

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(PostSequester)

FY2008

P.L. 110-161

FY2009

Omnibus

P.L. 111-8

FY2009

ARRA

P.L. 111-5

FY2009

Total

—Base Appropriations

$760.1

$790.1

$0.0

$790.1

$848.1a

$813.5

$793.7

$743.8

$759.2

—Transfer in from Superfund

+$25.7

+$26.4

$0.0

+$26.4

+$26.8

+$23.0

+$21.7

+19.2

Science and Technology Total

$785.8

$816.5

$0.0

$816.5

$874.9

$840.3

$816.7

$765.5

$778.4

$2,328.0

$2,392.1

$0.0

$2,392.1

$2,993.8

$2,756.5

$2,678.2

$2,512.1

$2,624.1

—Base Appropriations

$41.1

$44.8

$20.0

$64.8

$44.8

$44.7

$41.9

$39.7

$41.8

—Transfer in from Superfund

+$11.5

+$10.0

$0.0

+$10.0

+$9.9

+$9.4

+$9.9

Office of Inspector General Total

$52.6

$54.8

$20.0

$74.8

$54.8

$54.7

$51.8

$49.1

$51.8

Buildings & Facilities

$34.3

$35.0

$0.0

$35.0

$37.0

$36.4

$34.5

$1,254.0

$1,285.0

$600.0

$1,885.0

$1,306.5

$1,280.9

$1,213.8

$1,115.2

$1,088.8

—Transfer out to Office of Inspector General

-$11.5

-$10.0

$0.0

-$10.0

-$9.9

-$9.4

-$9.9

—Transfer out to Science and Technology

-$25.7

-$26.4

$0.0

-$26.4

-$26.8

-$23.0

-$21.7

-$19.2

Hazardous Substance Superfund (after transfers)

$1,216.8

$1,248.6

$600.0

$1,848.6

$1,269.7

$1,244.2

$1,180.9

$1,084.0

$1,059.6

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

Program

$105.8

$112.6

$200.0

$312.6

$113.1

$112.9

$104.1

$103.4

$94.6

Inland Oil Spill Program (formerly Oil Spill Response)

$17.1

$17.7

$0.0

$17.7

$18.4

$18.3

$18.2

$17.3

$18.2

—Clean Water State Revolving Fund

$689.1

$4,000.0

$4,689.1

$2,100.0

$1,522.0

$1,466.5

$1,851.1

$1,448.9

—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

$829.0

$2,000.0

$2,829.0

$1,387.0

$963.1

$917.9

$956.3

$906.9

Appropriations Account

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

P.L. 111-88 P.L. 112-10 P.L. 112-74

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 113-76)

Science and Technology

Environmental Programs and Management

Office of Inspector General

Hazardous Substance Superfund

(before transfers)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)

CRS-26

FY2013

P.L. 113-6

(PostSequester)

FY2008

P.L. 110-161

FY2009

Omnibus

P.L. 111-8

FY2009

ARRA

P.L. 111-5

FY2009

Total

$132.9

$145.0

$0.0

$145.0

$156.8

$0.0

$1,078.3

$1,094.9

$0.0

$1,094.9

$1,116.4

$1,104.2

$1,088.8

$1,032.0

$1,054.4

—Brownfields Section 104(k) Grants

$93.5

$97.0

$100.0

$197.0

$100.0

$99.8

$94.8

$89.9

$90.0

—Diesel Emission Reduction Grants

$49.2

$60.0

$300.0

$360.0

$60.0

$49.9

$30.0

$18.9

$20.0

—Other State and Tribal Assistance Grants

$54.2

$53.5

$0.0

$53.5

$50.0

$19.9

$15.0

$14.2

$15.0

State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total

$2,926.2

$2,968.5

$6,400.0

$9,368.5

$4,970.2

$3,758.9

$3,612.9

$3,962.4

$3,535.2

-$5.0

-$10.0

$0.0

-$10.0

-$40.0

-$140.0

-$50.0

$7,461.5

$7,635.7

$7,220.0

$14,855.7

$10,291.9a

$8,682.1

$8,449.4

$8,478.4

$8,200.0

Appropriations Account

—Special (Congressional) Project Grants

—Categorical Grants

Rescissions of Unobligated Balancesb

Total EPA Accounts

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

P.L. 111-88 P.L. 112-10 P.L. 112-74

FY2014

Enacted

(P.L. 113-76)

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using the most recent information available from House, Senate, or conference committee reports

accompanying the annual appropriations bills that fund EPA and Administration budget documents, including the President’s annual budget requests as presented by

OMB, EPA’s accompanying annual congressional budget justifications, and EPA’s FY2013 Operating Plan submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

“ARRA” refers to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The ARRA amounts do not reflect rescission of unobligated balances as per P.L.

111-226. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

FY2010 amounts presented for the base appropriations for the S&T account and the EPA total include $2.0 million in supplemental appropriations for research of

the potential long-term human health and environmental risks and impacts from the releases of crude oil, and the application of chemical dispersants and other

mitigation measures under P.L. 111-212, Title II.

In addition to other across-the-board rescissions, the FY2008-FY2010 rescissions presented here are from unobligated balances from funds appropriated in prior

years within the eight accounts, and made available for expenditure in a later year. In effect, these “rescissions” increase the availability of funds for expenditure by

the agency in the years in which they are applied, functioning as an offset to new appropriations by Congress. With regard to the FY2011 enacted rescissions,

Section 1740 in Title VII of Div. B under P.L. 112-10, Congress referred only to “unobligated balances available for ‘Environmental Protection Agency, State and

Tribal Assistance Grants’” (not across all accounts), and Congress did not specify that these funds were to be rescinded from prior years. For FY2012, the

Administrative Provisions in Division E, Title II of P.L. 112-74, rescinded unobligated balances from the STAG ($45.0 million) and the Hazardous Substance

Superfund ($5.0 million) accounts. FY2012 rescissions specified by Congress within the STAG account included $20.0 million from categorical grants, $10.0 million

from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), and $5.0 million each from Brownfields grants, Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants, and U.S.-Mexico Border

water infrastructure grants. For FY2013, Section 1406 of Title IV in P.L. 113-6, Congress rescinded unobligated balances from the Hazardous Substance Superfund

($15.0 million) and STAG ($35.0 million) accounts. FY2013 rescissions specified within the STAG account included $5.0 million from categorical grants, $10.0 million

each from the Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRFs, and $10.0 million from Brownfields grants.

CRS-27

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Figure A-1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority FY1976-FY2014 (Est.): Adjusted

and Not Adjusted for Inflation

($ in billions)

$18

$16

$14

$Billions

$12

Adjusted for Inflation (Est.) 2014 Dollars

$10

Nominal Dollars

$1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012

Fiscal Year

2014

Estimated

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with information from the Office of Management and

Budget, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2014, Historical Table: Table 5-4. CRS converted nominal

dollars to estimated 2014 dollars using the GDP Chained Price Index from Table 10.1 Gross Domestic Product and

Deflators Used in the Historical Tables - 1940–2019, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.

Discretionary Budget Authority for FY2014 enacted was estimated as reported at the time of the release of the

OMB FY2015 budget document in March 2014.

Note: FY1976 was the earliest fiscal year for which historical funding information on budget authority was

readily available from the Office of Management and Budget.

EPA Staff Levels

Figure A-2 below presents the trend in EPA’s authorized “Full Time Equivalent” (FTE)55

employment ceiling from FY2001 through FY2014. Information prior to FY2001 is available in

March 2000 testimony by the General Accounting Office (GAO),56 in which GAO reported that

As noted in Figure A-2, FTE employment is defined as one employee working full-time for a full year (52 weeks X

40 hours = 2,080 hours), or the equivalent hours worked by several part-time or temporary employees.

General Accounting Office (GAO), March 23, 2000, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Human Capital: Observations on EPA’s Efforts to

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

EPA FTEs increased by about 18% from FY1990 through FY1999, with the largest increase

(13%, from 15,277 to 17,280 FTEs) occurring from FY1990 though FY1993. From FY1993

through FY1999, GAO indicated that EPA’s FTEs grew at a more moderate rate, at less than 1%

per year. As indicated in Figure A-2, with the exception of increases in four fiscal years, the

general trend has been downward since FY2001.

Figure A-2. EPA’s Reported Authorized Full Time Equivalent (FTE),

Employment Ceiling FY2001-FY2014

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service as adapted from EPA’s “FY2015 EPA Budget in Brief,”

p. 11 (pdf p. 15), http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy2015, and Budget in Brief for previous fiscal years,

http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/archive#BudgetSummary.

Notes: Full Time Equivalent or FTE is defined as one employee working full-time for a full year (52 weeks X 40

hours = 2,080 hours), or the equivalent hours worked by several part-time or temporary employees.

(...continued)

Implement a Workforce Planning Strategy, Statement for the Record by Peter F. Guerrero, Director, Environmental

Protection Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, GAO/T-RCED-00129,http://www.gao.gov/products/T-RCED-00-129.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Appendix B. Descriptions of EPA’s Nine

Appropriations Accounts

From FY1996 through FY2013, annual appropriations for EPA had been requested by the

Administration and appropriated by Congress under eight statutory accounts. P.L. 113-76

established a ninth account for FY2014, the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund.

Table B-1 describes the scope of the programs and activities funded within each of these

accounts. Prior to FY1996, Congress appropriated funding for EPA under a different account

structure, making it difficult to compare funding for the agency historically over time by the

individual accounts.

Table B-1. EPA’s Nine Appropriations Accounts

Science and Technology (S&T): The S&T account incorporates elements of the former Research and

Development account that was in place until FY1996. The S&T account funds the development of the scientific

knowledge and tools necessary to inform EPA’s formulation of pollution control regulations, standards, and agency

guidance. EPA carries out research activities at its own laboratories and facilities, and also through contracts, grants,

and cooperative agreements with other federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations,

universities, and private businesses. Congress appropriates funds directly to the S&T account and transfers additional

funds from the Hazardous Substances Superfund account to the S&T account specifically to support research related

to the cleanup of hazardous substances.

Environmental Programs and Management (EPM): The EPM account funds a broad range of activities involved

in EPA’s development of pollution control regulations and standards, and enforcement of these requirements across

multiple environmental media, such as air quality and water quality. The EPM account also funds technical assistance

to pollution control agencies and organizations, and technical assistance to help regulated entities achieve compliance

with environmental requirements to avoid violations. Much of EPA’s administrative and operational expenses are

funded within this account as well.

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund: P.L. 113-76 added a ninth account for FY2014, the

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund. The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (P.L.

112-195) authorized the development of an electronic system to track hazardous waste shipments and a fund to

finance it that would be supported with start-up appropriations and user fees thereafter. The system would manage

the tracking of such shipping manifests specifically for hazardous wastes designated under Subtitle C of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Solid Waste Disposal Act.

Office of Inspector General (OIG): As amended, the Inspector General Act of 1978 established Offices of

Inspector General in numerous federal agencies, including EPA. These offices are intended to conduct independent

auditing, evaluation, and investigation of an agency’s programs and activities to identify potential management and

administrative deficiencies, which may create conditions for instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement of funds,

and to recommend actions to correct these deficiencies. Congress appropriates funds directly to EPA’s OIG account

and transfers additional funds from the Hazardous Substances Superfund account to the OIG account specifically to

support the office’s auditing, evaluation, and investigation of the Superfund program.

Buildings and Facilities: This account funds the construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and

purchase of fixed equipment and facilities owned or used by EPA.

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L. 113-76

Hazardous Substance Superfund: This account is funded by discretionary appropriations from a dedicated trust

fund of the same name, the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. As amended, the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) established the Superfund program to

clean up the nation’s most threatening sites and created the Superfund Trust Fund to finance the program. Dedicated

taxes on industry originally provided most of the revenues to the Superfund Trust Fund, but the taxing authority

expired at the end of 1995. Congress now finances this trust fund mostly with revenues from the General Fund of the

U.S. Treasury. EPA may use appropriations from the Superfund Trust Fund to enforce the liability of “potentially

responsible parties” for the cleanup of contaminated sites, and if the parties cannot be found or cannot pay at a site,

EPA may pay for the cleanup under a cost-share agreement with the state in which the site is located. Although the

Superfund account also funds EPA’s oversight of the cleanup of federal facilities by other agencies, these agencies fund

the cleanup activities with separate funds appropriated directly to them, not with Superfund monies.

Inland Oil Spill Program (formerly Oil Spill Response): As authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, this

account funds EPA’s activities to prepare for and prevent releases of oil into the inland zone of the United States

within the agency’s jurisdiction. The U.S. Coast Guard has jurisdiction over oil spills in the coastal zone of the United

States. EPA is reimbursed for its expenses to respond to oil spills at inland sites from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund,

which is administered by the U.S. Coast Guard. The former name of the “Oil Spill Response” account was changed by

the conferees as proposed in the President’s FY2012 request to “Inland Oil Spill Program.” This modification was

intended to more clearly reflect the agency’s jurisdiction for oil spill response in the inland coastal zone.

The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund Program: As with the Superfund account, this

account is funded by discretionary appropriations from a dedicated trust fund of the same name, the LUST Trust

Fund. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 established this trust fund. The LUST Trust Fund

is financed primarily by a 0.1 cent-per-gallon tax on motor fuels, authorized through FY2016. EPA may use

appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund to pay for the prevention of, and response to, releases from underground

storage tanks that contain petroleum, which is not covered under Superfund. EPA and the states (through

cooperative agreements) may use the funds to oversee corrective actions (i.e., cleanup) performed by the responsible

parties, to conduct cleanups where a responsible party fails to do so or in case of an emergency, and to recover LUST

monies spent on cleanup from the responsible parties. In addition to these activities, the Energy Policy Act of 2005

expanded the authorized uses of appropriated LUST monies to include implementation and enforcement of EPA’s

Underground Storage Tank leak prevention and detection program under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG): The majority of the funding within the STAG account is for

capitalization grants for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). SRF funding is used for

local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as construction of and modifications to municipal

sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with Clean Water Act and Safe

Drinking Water Act requirements, respectively. The remainder of the STAG account funds other water

infrastructure grants, categorical grants to states and tribes for administering numerous pollution control activities

delegated by EPA, grants for the cleanup of brownfields, and diesel emission reduction grants. Although the majority

of funding for grants awarded by EPA is funded within the STAG account, other agency accounts also fund various

types of grants, such as the S&T and EPM accounts.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Environmental Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

(name redacted)

Specialist in Environmental Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.