Managing Disaster Debris: Overview of Regulatory Requirements, Agency Roles, and Selected Challenges

Linda Luther
Analyst in Environmental Policy

After a disaster, when a region turns its attention to rebuilding, one of the greatest challenges to moving forward may involve how to properly manage debris generated by the event. Options include typical methods of waste management—landfilling, recycling, or burning. The challenge after a major disaster (e.g., a building or bridge collapse, or a flood, hurricane, or earthquake) is in managing significantly greater amounts of debris often left in the wake of such an event. 

Debris after a disaster may include waste soils and sediments, vegetation (trees, limbs, shrubs), municipal solid waste (common household garbage, personal belongings), construction and demolition debris (in some instances, entire residential structures and all their contents), vehicles (cars, trucks, boats), food waste, so-called white goods (refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners), and household hazardous waste (cleaning agents, pesticides, pool chemicals). Each type of waste may contain or be contaminated with certain toxic or hazardous constituents. In the short term, removal of debris is necessary to facilitate the recovery of a geographic area. In the long term, the methods by which these wastes are to be managed require proper consideration to ensure that their management (by landfilling, for example) will not pose future threats to human health or the environment. 

After a presidentially declared disaster, federal funding or direct assistance in response to the disaster may be available to a state or local government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may provide funding through its Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program for debris removal operations that eliminate immediate threats to lives, public health, and safety, or eliminate immediate threats of significant damage to improved public or private property. The federal share of funding to the affected area will be stated in the disaster declaration, but will be no less than 75%. The funding will be available for response activities in a designated geographic area for a specific period of time. 

In addition to funding, if the state or local government does not have the capability to respond to the disaster, it may request direct federal assistance from FEMA. Federal agencies most likely to assist with debris removal operations are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Activities they may perform include right-of-way clearance, curbside waste pickup, private property debris removal, property demolition, assistance with contaminated debris management, and collection of household hazardous waste.


Date of Report: March 17, 2010
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: RL34576
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

Damage to or destruction of the nation's water supply and water quality infrastructure by terrorist attack or natural disaster could disrupt the delivery of vital human services in this country, threatening public health and the environment, or possibly causing loss of life. Interest in such problems has increased greatly since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. 

Across the country, water infrastructure systems extend over vast areas, and ownership and operation responsibility are both public and private, but are overwhelmingly non-federal. Since the attacks, federal dam operators and local water and wastewater utilities have been under heightened security conditions and are evaluating security plans and measures. There are no federal standards or agreed-upon industry practices within the water infrastructure sector to govern readiness, response to security incidents, and recovery. Efforts to develop protocols and tools are ongoing since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This report presents an overview of this large and diverse sector, describes security-related actions by the government and private sector since 9/11, and discusses additional policy issues and responses, including congressional interest. 

Policymakers have been considering a number of initiatives, including enhanced physical security, better communication and coordination, and research. A key issue is how additional protections and resources directed at public and private sector priorities will be funded. In response, Congress has provided $923 million in appropriations for security at water infrastructure facilities (to assess and protect federal facilities and support security assessment and risk reduction activities by non-federal facilities) and passed a bill requiring drinking water utilities to conduct security vulnerability assessments (P.L. 107-188). When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002 (P.L. 107-297), it gave DHS responsibilities to coordinate information to secure the nation's critical infrastructure, including the water sector. Under Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency for protecting drinking water and wastewater utility systems. 

Recent congressional interest has focused on two legislative issues: (1) security of wastewater utilities, and (2) whether to include water utilities in chemical plant security regulations implemented by DHS. In the 109th Congress, a Senate committee approved legislation to encourage wastewater treatment works to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop site security plans. Similar legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress, and has been introduced in the 111th Congress (H.R. 2883). Congress also has turned attention to legislation to extend DHS's Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (H.R. 2868) and as part of that debate has been considering whether to preserve an existing exemption for water utilities from chemical facility standards or to include them in the scope of DHS security rules. Continuing attention to these issues in the 111th Congress is likely.


Date of Report: March 16, 2010
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: RL32189
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Clean Air Issues in the 111th Congress

James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

EPA regulatory actions on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions using existing Clean Air Act authority have been the main focus of congressional interest in clean air issues in recent months. Although the agency and the Obama Administration have consistently said that they would prefer that Congress pass legislation to address climate change, EPA has begun to develop regulations using its existing authority. On December 15, 2009, the agency finalized an "endangerment finding" under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, which permits it (in fact, requires it) to regulate pollutants for their effect as greenhouse gases for the first time. Relying on this finding, EPA will promulgate GHG emission standards for motor vehicles by the end of March. The implementation of these standards will, in turn, trigger permitting requirements and the imposition of Best Available Control Technology for new major stationary sources of GHGs. 

It is the triggering of standards for stationary sources (power plants, manufacturing facilities, and others) that has raised the most concern in Congress: legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate aimed at preventing EPA from implementing these requirements. The legislation has taken several forms, including the introduction of resolutions of disapproval for the endangerment finding itself under the Congressional Review Act, and stand-alone legislation that would forestall specific EPA regulatory actions. Meanwhile, EPA has itself proposed regulations and guidance that will limit the applicability of Clean Air Act GHG requirements, delaying the applicability of requirements for all stationary sources until 2011, focusing its regulatory efforts on the largest emitters, and granting smaller sources at least a six-year reprieve. 

The endangerment finding and EPA's other actions, which were triggered by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, come as Congress continues to struggle with climate change legislation. On June 26, 2009, the House narrowly passed H.R. 2454, a 1,428-page bill addressing a number of interrelated energy and climate change issues. The bill would establish a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, beginning in 2012. In the Senate, both the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have reported bills (S. 1733 and S. 1462), but action subsequently bogged down, while a trio of Senators began negotiating a climate bill from scratch. As the clock winds down on the current Congress, it becomes less likely that climate legislation will be enacted, and more likely that EPA's actions will be the principal U.S. response to climate issues for now. 

Besides addressing climate change, EPA has taken action on a number of conventional air pollutants, generally in response to the courts. The Bush Administration's EPA made a number of regulatory decisions that were vacated or remanded to the agency: among them were decisions on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)—a rule designed to control the long-range transport of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants, by establishing a cap-and-trade program— and the Clean Air Mercury Rule, which would have established a cap-and-trade program for power plant mercury emissions. EPA will address these court decisions through new regulations – the agency expects to propose a replacement for CAIR in April. Congress could also address these issues through legislation, an approach that might reduce the likelihood of further court challenges. The agency is also in the midst of reviewing ambient air quality standards for the six most widespread air pollutants. These standards serve as EPA's definition of clean air, and drive a wide range of regulatory controls. 

This report provides an overview of clean air legislative and regulatory issues.


Date of Report: March 16, 2010
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R40145
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Drivers: Population, Economic Development and Growth, and Energy Use

John Blodgett
Specialist in Environmental Policy

Larry Parker
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

In the context of climate change and possible responses to the risk associated with it, three variables strongly influence the levels and growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: population, income (measured as per capita gross domestic product [GDP]), and intensity of emissions (measured as tons of greenhouse gas emissions per million dollars of GDP). 

(Population) × (per capita GDP) × (Intensityghg) = Emissionsghg 

This is the relationship for a given point in time; over time, any effort to change emissions alters the exponential rates of change of these variables. This means that the rates of change of the three left-hand variables, measured in percentage of annual change, sum to the rate of change of the right-hand variable, emissions. 

For most countries, and for the world as a whole, population and per capita GDP are rising faster than intensity is declining, so emissions are rising. Globally, for the variables above over the period 1990-2005, the rates of change (Δ) in annual percent sum as follows (numbers do not add precisely because of rounding): 

Population Δ + per capita GDP Δ + Intensityghg Δ = Emissionsghg Δ 
(+1.4) + (+1.7) + ( -1.6) = (+1.6) 

As can be seen, global emissions have been rising at a rate of about 1.6% per year, driven by the growth of population and of economic activity. 

Within this generalization, countries vary widely. (Unless otherwise noted, comments about countries refer to the top-20 emitters as of 2005, who accounted for about 75% of world emissions that year.) Between 1990 and 2005, in some countries, including Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and South Africa, population growth alone exceeded the decline in intensity. For most countries, and for the world as a whole, per capita GDP growth exceeded the intensity improvement each achieved. Countries for whom intensity improvements were greater than their per capita GDP increases included Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, France, and South Africa. And both the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, following their economic contractions in the 1990s, posted negative numbers for population, per capita income, intensity, and GHG emissions between 1990 and 2005. Besides the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, only the United Kingdom and Germany reduced their GHG emissions for the period (Germany being helped by reductions in the former East Germany). 

Stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions would mean the rate of change equals zero. Globally, with a population growth rate of 1.4% per year and an income growth rate of 1.7% per year, intensity would have to decline at a rate of -3.1% per year to hold emissions at the level of the year that rate of decline went into effect. Within the United States, at the 1990-2005 population growth rate of 1.1% per year and income growth rate of 1.8% per year, intensity would have had to decline at a rate of -2.9% per year to hold emissions level; however, U.S. intensity declined at a rate of -1.9%, leaving emissions to grow at 1.0% per year. 

Looking to the future, under auspices of the Copenhagen Accord, the United States has submitted a target of reducing emissions from the 2005 level by 17% in 2020. This would require the United States to reduce the intensity of its emissions by some -4.6% per year during the 2010-2020 decade. This implies that the rate of intensity decline needs to better than double. .


Date of Report: March 5, 2010
Number of Pages: 36
Order Number: RL33970
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Recycling Programs in Congress: Legislative Development and Architect of the Capitol Administration

Jacob R. Straus
Analyst on the Congress

The House of Representatives and the Senate created separate voluntary recycling programs in 1989, during the 101st Congress (1989-1991). Administered by the Architect of the Capitol, the recycling programs aimed to reduce the amount of material sent to landfills and establish the House and the Senate as leaders of the recycling movement. 

The initial recycling programs in the House and Senate focused on the recycling of paper and the use of recycled paper, including white office paper, newspaper, and cardboard. While the program had modest beginnings, since 1992, when the General Services Administration (GSA) began managing the House and Senate recycling contracts, the House (13,190 tons) and the Senate (6,314 tons) have recycled a combined total of approximately 19,500 tons of paper. 

At approximately the same time the House and Senate began recycling paper, they also began recycling bottles and cans. Since 1992, when GSA began managing the recycling of non-paper materials, the House (656 tons) and the Senate (226 tons) have recycled a combined total of approximately 882 tons of bottles and cans. This number has fluctuated as the increased use of plastic instead of glass bottles has decreased the total weight of recycled bottles and cans. 

In 2001, the House and the Senate began recycling e-waste (e.g., computers, printers, and toner cartridges), construction, and demolition waste products (e.g., carpet, concrete, ceiling tiles, and scrap metal). The additional categories of recycling have allowed the House (27,000 tons) and the Senate (12,500 tons) to recycle almost 40,000 tons of total materials. Overall, the expansion of the recycling program in both the House and Senate has resulted in an increase of total tons recycled and a decrease in total tons of waste transferred to landfills. 

Recently, the recycling program has expanded to include the recycling of cell phones and the composting of food waste in the House of Representatives. In the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, the Architect's statutory recycling authority was amended to create a new program for the collection and sale of recycled materials as surplus property and to establish a recycling revolving fund within the Architect's office. The language requires the Architect to use recycling proceeds to support environmental and energy related programs. 

For further analysis of recycling programs beyond those in the House and Senate, see CRS Report RS22807, Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs): Issues with Use and Disposal, by Linda Luther;

 

CRS Report RL34147, Managing Electronic Waste: An Analysis of State E-Waste Legislation, by Linda Luther; and

 

CRS Report RL31505,
Recycling Computers and Electronic Equipment: Legislative and Regulatory Approaches for "E-Waste", by James E. McCarthy.

 

Date of Report: March 12, 2010
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: RL34617
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.