EPA’s Proposed Vessel General Permits: Background and Issues

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

In November 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed two Clean Water Act (CWA) permits to regulate certain types of vessel discharges into U.S. waters. The proposed permits would replace a single Vessel General Permit (VGP) issued in 2008 that is due to expire in December 2013. As proposed, the permits would apply to approximately 71,000 large domestic and foreign vessels and perhaps as many as 138,000 small vessels. This universe of regulated entities is diverse as well as large, consisting of tankers, freighters, barges, cruise ships and other passenger vessels, and commercial fishing vessels. Their discharges are similarly diverse, including among other pollutants aquatic nuisance species (ANS), nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, metals, and toxic chemical compounds that can have a broad array of effects on aquatic species and human health, many of which can be harmful.

EPA has proposed two draft permits, one (draft VGP) for large vessels to replace the 2008 VGP, and one for smaller vessels that currently are covered by a congressionally enacted temporary moratorium (draft sVGP). EPA expects to take final action by March 15, 2013. By proposing them well in advance of the VGP’s expiration in December 2013, EPA intends to provide ample time for the regulated community to prepare for the application of new requirements.

The CWA requires that all regulated discharges must meet effluent limitations representing applicable levels of technology-based control. The draft permits largely retain the current permit’s approach of relying on best management practices to control most discharges, because EPA concluded that it is infeasible to develop numeric effluent limits for most controlled discharges. However, the draft VGP for larger vessels includes for the first time numeric ballast water discharge limits, which are consistent with standards in a March 2012 Coast Guard rule and an international convention.

The principal benefits of the permits will be reduced risk of introducing ANS into U.S. waters and enhanced environmental quality resulting from reduced pollutant discharges, but the magnitude of benefits is not calculable, according to EPA. The agency acknowledged significant uncertainty about several assumptions affecting estimated costs of the permits.

EPA’s proposal raises two key issues. One concerns inclusion of specific numeric ballast water discharge limits in the draft VGP. At issue has been whether EPA would propose more stringent numeric limits, as some environmental groups have favored and a few states have already adopted. A second issue concerns the role of states in regulating vessel discharges.

Congressional interest in this topic has been evident for some time, as reflected in two bills enacted in 2008 to exempt certain vessels from a CWA permit requirement, thus restricting the population of vessels subject to the current VGP. In the 112th Congress, the House passed H.R. 2838, which included provisions to establish a uniform national standard for ballast water discharges that would supersede EPA and Coast Guard ballast water management requirements, void the VGP, and supersede existing state standards or permits for any discharge incidental to the normal operation of a commercial vessel. The enacted measure (P.L. 112-213) deleted the ballast water provisions and extended a permit moratorium for certain small vessels.


Date of Report: December 27, 2012
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R42142
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42142.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Clean Water Act Section 401: Background and Issues

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will comply with the act, including state-established water quality standard requirements. Disputes have arisen over the states’ exercise of this authority in protecting water quality. For the most part, the debate over the Section 401 certification issue has been between states and hydropower interests. A 1994 Supreme Court decision, which upheld the states’ authority in this area, dismayed development and hydropower interest groups. The Court revisited these issues in a 2006 ruling that unanimously upheld the authority of states to condition hydropower licenses by exercising Section 401. The dispute between states and industry groups about Section 401 authority has been a legislative issue on several occasions, but Congress has not modified the provision’s scope.

In addition, there has been interest in clarifying whether Section 401 certification applies to nonpoint source discharges, such as rainfall runoff, as well as point source discharges from pipes or ditches. This question was raised in lawsuits in Oregon, where a federal court ruled in 1998 and again in 2008 that Section 401 does not apply to nonpoint source discharges. Still, some interests continue to favor a broad reading of 401 that would apply to both nonpoint and point sources of pollutant discharges.


Date of Report: December 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: 97-488
Price: $19.95

To Order:

97-488.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

H.R. 2273 and S. 3512: Analysis of Proposals to Create a Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program Under RCRA

Linda Luther
Analyst in Environmental Policy

On October 14, 2011, the House passed the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act (H.R. 2273). The bill would amend Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, more commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), by adding Section 4011, Management and Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals. On August 2, 2012, the Coal Ash Recycling and Oversight Act of 2012 was introduced in the Senate (S. 3512). Both amendments would create a state-implemented permit program for the management and disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs).

Permit programs are used as a tool to ensure that certain federal regulations are consistently enforced. When created under RCRA, those federal regulations are intended to achieve a consistent standard of protection from threats associated with waste disposal facilities. Pursuant to directive in RCRA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified protective measures necessary to address such risks, promulgated regulations incorporating those criteria, and approved state-implemented programs to enforce the criteria. The resulting regulatory program entails two different, but related elements—federal standards intended to provide a required level of protection and the permit program that will implement the standards.

Section 4011, in both bills, would create both the federal standards and the program to implement them, under the umbrella of creating CCR permit program. Established entirely in statute, the program would be unique among environmental laws. The permit program would draw from the regulatory program applicable to municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. In contrast to the statutory directives and resulting federal requirements associated with that program, the proposed amendments to RCRA include no provisions that would ensure state adoption and implementation of a CCR permit program that would result in the adoption and implementation of minimum federal standards necessary to protect human health and the environment from risks associated with CCR disposal.

Based on the structure of each bill, it would appear that the proposed amendments are intended to create a program similar to the one applicable to MSW landfills. However, it cannot be determined whether states would implement their programs as such. There are complex variables that make that determination difficult. The primary reasons stem from the limited authority that Congress has to require and, given the limits to its authority in the proposed amendments, EPA would have to compel states to implement the program. Also, provisions in each bill lack detail comparable to regulatory standards with regard to key issues such as how, when, or to which facilities the permit program would apply. As a result, program requirements would be subject to the interpretation of each state that chooses to implement it.

Due to the questions regarding how states may implement it, a CCR permit program would be similar to the program to regulate MSW landfill criteria, only in states that choose to implement it as such. That level of uncertainty defeats the purpose of a permit program and would not be consistent with other permit programs created under RCRA. This report is intended to provide Members of Congress and their staff with information to understand why that would be the case.


Date of Report: December 5, 2012
Number of Pages: 44
Order Number: R42847
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42847.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

William J. Mallett
Specialist in Transportation Policy

Steven Maguire
Specialist in Public Finance

This report addresses several options being considered by Congress to address the financing needs of local communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects and to decrease or close the gap between available funds and projected needs. Some of the options exist and are well established, but they are under discussion for expansion or modification. Other innovative policy options have recently been proposed in connection with water infrastructure, especially to supplement or complement existing financing tools. Some are intended to provide robust, long-term revenue to support existing financing programs and mechanisms. Some are intended to encourage private participation in furnishing drinking water and wastewater services.

Six options that are reflected in recent legislative proposals, including budgetary implications, are discussed.

• Increase funding for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in the Clean Water Act (H.R. 3145 in the 112th Congress) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 5320 in the 111th Congress), 
• Create a federal water infrastructure trust fund (H.R. 6249 and H.R. 3145 in the 112th Congress), 
• Create a “Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act” Program, or WIFIA (S. 3626 and H.R. 3145 in the 112th Congress), 
• Create a National Infrastructure Bank (H.R. 402 and S. 652 in the 112th Congress), 
• Lift private activity bond restrictions on water infrastructure projects (S. 939 and H.R. 1802 in the 112th Congress), and 
• Reinstate authority for the issuance of Build America Bonds (included in the Administration’s FY2013 budget request). 

A number of these issues and options have been examined in hearings by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment (on February 28 and March 21, 2012) and by the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife (December 13, 2011, and February 28, 2012).

Consensus exists among many stakeholders—state and local governments, equipment manufacturers and construction companies, and environmental advocates—on the need for more investment in water infrastructure. There is no consensus supporting a preferred option or policy, and many advocate a combination that will expand the financing “toolbox” for projects. Some of the options discussed in this report may be helpful, but there is no single method that will address needs fully or close the financing gap completely. For example, some may be helpful to projects in large urban or multi-jurisdictional areas, while others may be more beneficial in smaller communities. It is unlikely that any of the recently proposed options could be up and running quickly, meaning that, at least for the near term, communities will continue to rely on the existing SRF programs, tax-exempt governmental bonds, and tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance their water infrastructure needs.


Date of Report: December 5, 2012
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R42467
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42467.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Bee Health: The Role of Pesticides

Linda-Jo Schierow
Specialist in Environmental Policy

Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Bees, both commercially managed honey bees and wild bees, play an important role in global food production. In the United States, the value of honey bees only as commercial pollinators in U.S. food production is estimated at about $15 billion to $20 billion annually. The estimated value of other types of insect pollinators, including wild bees, to U.S. food production is not available. Given their importance to food production, many have expressed concern about whether a “pollinator crisis” has been occurring in recent decades. In the United States, commercial migratory beekeepers along the East Coast of the United States began reporting sharp declines in 2006 in their honey bee colonies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that overwinter colony losses from 2006 to 2011 averaged more than 32% annually. This issue remained legislatively active in the 110th Congress and resulted in increased funding for pollinator research, among other types of farm program support, as part of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). Congressional interest in the health of honey bees and other pollinators has continued in the 112th Congress (e.g., H.R. 2381, H.R. 6083, and S. 3240) and may extend into the 113th Congress.

This report:

• Describes changes in managed and wild bee populations, given readily available data and information. It focuses on managed and wild bees only, and excludes other types of pollinators, including other insects, birds, and bats. Data on managed honey bees are limited, and do not provide a comprehensive view of changes in bee populations. Data for wild bee populations are even more limited. 
• Provides a listing of the range of possible factors thought to be negatively affecting managed and wild bee populations. In addition to pesticides, other identified factors include bee pests and diseases, diet and nutrition, genetics, habitat loss and other environmental stressors, and beekeeping management issues, as well as the possibility that bees are being negatively affected by cumulative, multiple exposures and/or the interactive effects of each of these factors. 
• Briefly summarizes readily available scientific research and analysis regarding the potential role of pesticides among the factors affecting the health and wellbeing of bees, as well as the statutory authority and related regulatory activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to pesticide use. 

A 2007 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Status of Pollinators in North America, provides a more detailed scientific context for this report and may be consulted for more in depth understanding about bee health. That study concluded that many factors contribute to pollinator declines in North America, and CRS accedes to that conclusion. Accordingly, the focus of this report on bee exposure to pesticides is not intended to imply that pesticides are any more important in influencing the health and wellness of bees than any of the other identified factors influencing bee health. Pesticides are only one of the many influences on bee health.

Because neonicotinoid pesticides have been the focus of concerns in Europe and in the United States, this report briefly describes recent scientific research related to possible effects of exposure to these pesticides on bees. The report concludes with a summary of recent regulatory activity regarding neonicotinoids at EPA, the federal agency charged with assessing risks and regulating U.S. sale and use of pesticides.


Date of Report: December 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: R42855
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42855.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.