with the Northeast-Midwest Institute in Washington, D.C. Under this Act, all ships entering U.S. ports will be asked to voluntarily perform ballast water exchanges effective later this year. But this action lacks teeth, the petitioners charge. Although ship operators will have to file reports with the Coast Guard detailing whether they actually conducted exchanges and where and when they took place, compliance will be voluntary—at least in the beginning. "If for some reason weather or safety reasons don't allow [an exchange] , there are currently no civil or criminal penalties" planned, said Scott Newsham, an environmental standards chief for the Coast Guard. "Two to three years after the regulation becomes effective, we'll make a determination on whether this voluntary program is effective. If not, it'll become mandatory," Newsham added. Yet, "there are no clear guidelines on how the Coast Guard is going to determine whether or not to go mandatory after this voluntary period," said Linda Sheehan, a pollution program manager with the Center for
Marine Conservation. Neither does the Act address treatment. "Ballast water exchange is good over the short term; it's a first step that we have to take, but over the longer term, there are problems with it," Sheehan said.
"There still is not a lot of science that can be used to determine what it takes to reduce the risk of species invasions to an acceptably low level." — D o r n Carlson,
EPA
The shipping industry readily admits the weaknesses of ballast water exchange. "Because of the stability and stress factor of a ship, if you've got bad weather conditions or a certain cargo configuration, you can't do it all the time," said Kathy Metcalf, director of maritime affairs for Chamber of Shipping of America. Moreover, the residual ballast water remaining in sediments at
tank bottoms often harbors viruses and bacteria. But treatment technologies to handle this problem already exist, Cangelosi said. "They just need to jump from sewage treatment and the industrial waste world to the ballast water world," she said. Some of the technologies currently being bandied about include filtration, ultraviolet radiation, ozonation, heat, and biocides. To get these technologies into place more quickly, the petitioners turned to EPA "because through the permitting process, the Clean Water Act has proven to be very effective in controlling pollution from industrial discharges and municipal treatment plants. Using this tool to apply to pollution from ballast discharges could be equally as powerful, and it's an available tool that's not being used," Sheehan said. But because the NPDES program is largely state-driven, such a change could cause problems down the road if states choose to regulate ballast water in different ways, Carlson said, adding that nothing is preventing them from doing that now. —KRIS CHRISTEN
House bills could weaken standards, environmentalists charge The House of Representatives in February quickly approved two controversial bills designed to trim costs shouldered by companies when complying with regulations. The bills angered many Democrats, moderate Republicans, and the environmental community, who said both bills could weaken existing environmental standards. On Feb. 10, the House approved "The Mandates Information Act," similar to a law enacted in 1995 that applies only to state and local governments. This year's proposal would allow lawmakers to stop any bill estimated to impose $100 million on businesses. Environmental groups and certain House members charged that the Republican leadership pushed through a bill that could prevent passage of important laws, without a floor debate
on its benefits, and without having to vote directly against the bill, said Grant Cope of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). The bill's supporters countered that Congress has plenty of time to discuss benefits, as the legislation moves through the committee process. The next day, the House approved "The Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act," which would allow state regulatory agencies to waive violations of reporting requirements for firsttime, small-company offenders. This bill cuts to the heart of most environmental laws, said PIRG's Cope. Most states require daily monitoring reports from industrial facilities, listing the amount of contaminants released into the environment. The reports help states determine the source of pollution in an unhealthful
1 5 2 A • APRIL 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
waterway. But if a business skips reporting, and that goes undetected by an agency, it would be difficult to pinpoint the company responsible for contributing to the water's pollution, Cope said. Some state agencies have trouble following up environmental violations now, and this bill provides an incentive for small companies to avoid reporting, Cope said. However, GOP House staffers said the bill provides states with the flexibility to require a fine if the violation might cause harm. "This legislation gives law-abiding small business owners the opportunity to correct minor mistakes without being fined thousands of dollars," added Rep. David Mcintosh (R-Ind.), the main sponsor of the paperwork bill. Sources said the Senate is not likely to approve either bill this year. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
