$48,000,000 from the inception of the Superfund in 1981 through August 1987. These recoveries have come primarily from removal actions with the larger recoveries from remedial actions still to come. The Committee is aware that many delays occur as a result of responsible party negotiations. However, the Committee directs the Agency to place greater emphasis on improving performance in this area and working with the Department of Justice to overcome cost recovery delays.

The Committee recognizes the current financial and programmatic cost recovery efforts being made by the Agency, in particular, establishment of active site files in the regions; upgrades in the enforcement data management systems; development of the Superfund transactional automated retrieval system; institution of the regional administrative support units; a streamlined referral process; and development of procedures for administrative settlements.

These components contribute to the timely collecting and packaging of all of the requisite data necessary to cost recover expenditures made from the fund for site cleanup and related expenses. The Committee urges the continuation of these ongoing and new initiatives and expects the Agency to coordinate these efforts among the various Agency offices in order to improve and accelerate the cost recovery process.

The Superfund Enforcement Program, due to its inherently adversarial nature, often leads to disagreements and delays. The Committee is aware that enforcement philosophies and strategies may differ significantly among EPA's Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, Office of General Counsel, regional offices, and the Department of Justice. Much better defined procedures, policy guidelines, and criteria are needed in a timely fashion to give consistency to the Superfund program. In order to accelerate cleanup activities the Agency is instructed to undertake a formal evaluation of Superfund enforcement. Specifically, it should determine how the three headquarters' enforcement-related offices, the program office and the Department of Justice cause delays, misdirection, inconsistency and otherwise may delay regional offices in their Superfund enforcement effort. This effort should develop a consistent framework of enforcement policies and the procedures needed to assure their implementation. Specific recommendations should also address ways to assure policy level review of enforcement agreements in the regions on an expedited basis; policy level reviews should be defined with some specificity; and provisions for referral to headquarters of cases requiring policy level reviews on an expedited basis should be provided.

The Committee concurs with language in the House report regarding the training of small and minority contractors in merging environmental cleanup areas in order to increase competition in contracting. The $500,000 earmarked in fiscal year 1987 for this initiative should be dedicated to Superfund training over the next year. To avoid further delay, an organization with demonstrated training experience and an existing network should be used to design and implement an effective training program. The Committee believes that EPA's successful training pro

gram for asbestos abatement could serve as a model and directs the Agency to consult with the National Association of Minority Contractors. Contracting procedures should be expedited as necessary so as to begin training activities as soon as possible.

The Committee directs the Agency to accelerate the pace of issuing the necessary implementing regulations for the Superfund technical assistance grants under section 117(e) of SARA. These grants are intended to allow citizens affected by proposed and final national priorities list sites to obtain technical assistance in interpreting information relating to such sites. The Committee directs the Administrator to publish in the Federal Register, no later than 45 days after enactment of this act, an interim final rule implementing section 117(e). Prior to issuing the interim final rule, the Agency should work with potential applicants, such as those individuals or groups that have contacted the Agency expressing interest in applying for technical assistance grants, to assure compliance with existing EPA grant regulations deemed relevant and applicable to section 117(e) applications so that applications can be filed immediately upon promulgation of the regulation.

The Agency, in making such grants, is directed to act expeditiously. No later than 30 days after receipt of an application, the Administrator should notify an applicant of a decision whether to award a grant. No later than 30 days after acceptance by an applicant of a grant, the Administrator should assure that the grant money is available to the successful applicant.

Should the Administrator fail to issue the interim final rule according to the deadline designated herein, the Committee directs the Administrator, within 60 days of enactment, to provide the Committee with a written statement, explaining why the deadline was not met, providing an alternative date for issuing the interim final rule, and justifying why the interim final rule cannot be issued any earlier than such alternative date.

Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 [SARA] authorizes the establishment of a response program for cleanup of releases from leaking underground storage tanks that contain petroleum. Owners and operators of facilities with underground storage tanks have the initial responsibility for cleanup, and once regulations are in place, must maintain evidence of financial responsibility. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank [LUST] Trust Fund provides supplemental cleanup capabilities and may also be used to enforce necessary corrective action and to recover costs expended from the fund. The Agency's objective is to

implement the LUST response program primarily through cooperative agreements with States.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 for leaking underground storage tank funds, an increase of $5,000,000 above the House allowance and $15,000,000 above the budget estimate. The administration requested no additional resources in fiscal year 1988, based on the assumption that a $25,000,000 carryover would be sufficient to operate the program next year. The Committee's recommendation of $15,000,000 will support an expanding program level of approximately $40,000,000 next year, roughly one-half of the needs identified by States, according to information provided by the Agency. The Committee concurs with House bill language to provide an additional $5,000,000 for administrative expenses.

The long-range goal of the construction grants program is to eliminate the municipal discharge of untreated or inadequately treated pollutants and thereby help restore or maintain the quality of the Nation's waters and protect the health and well-being of the people. A more immediate goal is to facilitate maximum compliance with the secondary treatment requirement deadline in the national municipal policy of July 1, 1988. This program provides grants to municipal and intermunicipal agencies to assist in financing the construction of cost-effective and environmentally sound municipal wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the program provides funds to assist delegated States in carrying out their responsibilities to manage the construction grants program and to assist them in carrying out other water quality management programs.

With enactment of the 1987 amendments, prior to the allotment of funds to the States, 1 percent of the appropriation is reserved for more CSO projects and the national estuary program, and one-half of 1 percent is reserved to fund the wastewater treatment needs of Indian tribes. Each State may reserve 4 percent of its allotment to manage its delegated construction grant activities, 1 percent of its authorized allotment for water quality management planning, and 1 percent of its allotment to develop and implement a nonpoint source control program. The act also requires that each State set aside between 4 and 71⁄2 percent of its allotment to provide financial incentives to communities to use innovative and alternative technologies in constructing their wastewater treatment facilities; it also permits States having substantial

rural populations to set aside between 4 and 7%1⁄2 percent of their funds for projects in small communities. All grants for assisting in the development and construction of wastewater treatment facilities are to be awarded on the basis of a State's priority system, which is designed to insure improved water quality.

Grants for the construction of eligible wastewater treatment facilities are provided to communities that have completed facility planning and design, and an allowance for planning/design work is included in the grant. Provision is also made for advances to enable small communities, otherwise unable to finance such activities, to plan and design projects. Funding to construct reserve capacity was eliminated effective October 1, 1985, and the Federal share for grant eligible construction was reduced from 75 to 55 percent, effective the same date.

The goal of the State management assistance grant program under secton 205(g) is to allow the States, rather than EPA, to assume responsibility for day-to-day management of construction grants and other priority programs, and under section 205(j)(1) to provide essential support to water quality management planning. The 1987 amendments added a new set-aside, section 205(j)(5), to be used by States to develop and implement nonpoint source control programs. The primary goal for use of section 205(g) funds has been early achievement of maximum delegation of construction grants project management to States. The timing and extent of delegation and financial support to each State depends on the State's ability to operate a construction grant program that meets statutory objectives and requirements and EPA policy. A grant is provided to a State when it can show that it is able to exercise effective management for a substantial portion of program activities.

The 1987 amendments authorized States to create a State revolving fund [SRF] to provide below-market interest rate loans to communities for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Capitalization grants may be awarded to States with EPA-approved SRF programs, beginning in fiscal year 1987. Ultimately (by fiscal year 1991), the SRF program will completely replace the construction grants program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The President included no budget request for the construction grants program but indicated that an amended request would be submitted in the amount of $2,000,000,000 after enactment of authorizing legislation. Although the Water Quality Act of 1987 was enacted February 4, 1987 (Public Law 100-4), the Congress has not yet received the budget amendment.

The Committee concurs with the House recommendation to appropriate $2,400,000,000 for this program in 1988. This represents an increase of $400,000,000 above the pending budget request and is the full amount authorized under the new statutes.

The Committee is pleased to note that EPA has included a fair-share requirement for small and minority businesses in the draft guidelines it has prepared to assist States in establishing State revolving funds. The

Committee fully expects this requirement to remain an integral part of the Agency's revolving fund guidelines. As part of the Agency's report to the Congress on the development of State revolving funds during the fiscal year 1989 budget process, the Committee directs EPA to include all relevant information on the fair-share requirement.

The Committee notes the recently announced administration payment policy for the State revolving fund program. Under this policy, EPA proposes to issue letters of credit to States in lieu of cash payments as intended by Congress under the provisions of section 601(b) of the Water Quality Act of 1987. If implemented, this administration policy would have the effect of preventing State loan funds from accruing interest on Federal contributions, as provided for under section 603(d)(6), and will jeopardize the bond ratings that would be accorded to on-hand cash funds. The Committee strongly urges EPA to observe the intent and the letter of the law in awarding and disbursing capitalization grants in cash to the States in accord with the provisions of section 601(b).

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The Committee concurs with the administrative provision recommended by the House to prohibit the use of funds for pesticide indemnification payments.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

The Council on Environmental Quality was established by the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] and the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and is located within the Executive Office of the President. The Council's principal responsibility is to provide the President and the Congress with timely and authoritative advice on key policy issues. In addition to providing policy advice, the Council is responsible for maintaining policy oversight of the Federal Government's implementation of NEPA. The Council is also charged with cochairing with EPA, the Interagency Toxic Substances Data Committee; serving as Executive Secretary of the Interagency Task Force on Acid Precipitation; overseeing implementation of environmental messages by the President; assisting and advising the President in preparing the annual environmental quality report to the Congress; and coordinating international environmental activities.