[House Report 108-33]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 108-33
======================================================================
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY ACT OF 2003
_______
March 11, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 866]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to
whom was referred the bill (H.R. 866) to amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of
wastewater treatment works, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
Summary and Purpose
H.R. 866, the ``Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of
2003,'' amends Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to authorize grants for enhancing the security of
wastewater treatment works.
Background and Need
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
identification and protection of critical infrastructure have
become national priorities. On October 10, 2001, the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing
on the security of infrastructure within the Subcommittee's
jurisdiction. At that hearing, the Subcommittee learned that a
great deal of planning and protection of critical
infrastructure was already underway. In part, this was due to
activities under Presidential Decision Directive No. 63, issued
in 1998, which established a goal of protection of the nation's
critical infrastructure from intentional attacks (both physical
attacks and cyber attacks). For example, Sandia National
Laboratories has been developing, under a contract with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a vulnerability
assessment tool for drinking water systems. The Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) has been developing Information Sharing
and Analysis Centers, which have been incorporated into the
National Infrastructure Protection Center at FBI Headquarters,
to share information on terrorist threats with operators of
critical infrastructure.
Most activities, however, were focused on that
infrastructure defined by the Directive as critical:
information and communications; banking and finance; water
supply; aviation, highways, mass transit, pipelines, rail, and
waterborne commerce; public health services; electric power;
and, oil and gas production and storage. Before September 11,
2001, this list did not include wastewater infrastructure. That
event taught our nation to take a broader look at our
vulnerabilities, such as the access provided to buildings by
sewer pipes, as well as the significant environmental and
public health effects that could result from wastewater
treatment plant failures.
The nation's wastewater infrastructure consists of
approximately 16,000 publicly owned wastewater treatment
plants, 100,000 major pumping stations, 600,000 miles of
sanitary sewers and another 200,000 miles of storm sewers, with
a total value of more than $2 trillion. Taken together, the
sanitary and storm sewers form an extensive network that runs
near or beneath key buildings and roads, the heart of business
and financial districts, and the downtown areas of major
cities, and is contiguous to many communication and
transportation networks. Significant damage to the nation's
wastewater facilities or collection systems could result in
loss of life, catastrophic environmental damage to rivers,
lakes, and wetlands, contamination of drinking water supplies,
long-term public health impacts, destruction of fish and
shellfish production, and disruption to commerce, the economy,
and our nation's normal way of life.
In the FY 2002 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act (P.L. 107-73), Congress provided EPA with an additional
$500,000 to help fund the development of a vulnerability
assessment tool for wastewater systems. EPA provided this
funding to the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA) to develop the Vulnerability Self Assessment Tool
(VSAT). The VSAT software is designed to provide wastewater
utilities with the means to consider critical threats and
identify key vulnerabilities to their systems. An initial
version of the assessment software was made available in July
2002.
This bill authorizes additional resources for wastewater
utilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement
security enhancements at publicly owned treatment works,
authorizes resources for technical assistance on security
measures to small wastewater utilities, and authorizes
resources for the further development and refinement of
vulnerability self-assessment methodologies and tools for
wastewater utilities.
Discussion of Committee Bill and Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
Provides that the Act may be cited as the ``Wastewater
Treatment Works Security Act of 2003''.
Section 2. Wastewater treatment works security
Section 2 of H.R. 866 amends Title II of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act by adding a new section 222.
Subsection (a) of new section 222 authorizes EPA to make
grants to states, municipalities, or intermunicipal or
interstate agencies for improving security at wastewater
treatment works. Under paragraph (1), EPA may make grants to
these entities for conducting vulnerability assessments at
publicly owned treatment works. Paragraph (2) authorizes EPA to
make grants to these entities to implement one or more of the
basic security enhancements listed in subsection (c)(1), to
reduce vulnerabilities at publicly owned treatment works that
were identified in a vulnerability assessment. Under paragraph
(3), EPA may make grants to these entities to implement further
security enhancements to reduce vulnerabilities at publicly
owned treatment works that were identified in a vulnerability
assessment.
Subsection (b) defines a vulnerability assessment as an
assessment of the vulnerability of a treatment works to actions
intended to substantially disrupt the ability of the treatment
works to safely and reliably operate or to have a substantial
adverse effect on critical infrastructure, public health or
safety, or the environment. Subsection (b) further clarifies
that vulnerability assessments are to include the
identification of procedures, countermeasures, and equipment
that the treatment works can implement or utilize to reduce the
identified vulnerabilities, and requires a review of all
potentially vulnerable aspects of a treatment works.
Subsection (c) authorizes two categories of funding for
security enhancements. Paragraph (1) lists several types of
basic security enhancements, for which funding is preapproved.
To be eligible for assistance to fund these basic security
enhancements, the applicant need only certify that a
vulnerability assessment has been completed for a treatment
works and that the security enhancement for which assistance is
sought is to reduce vulnerabilities identified in the
assessment.
Paragraph (2) authorizes funding for additional security
enhancements that are not preapproved. Additional security
enhancements must be identified in the vulnerability
assessment, and may go beyond the measures identified in
paragraph (1), including physical or operational improvements.
To receive funding for a security enhancement under paragraph
(2), the applicant must submit an application to the
Administrator containing such information as the Administrator
may request.
Paragraph (3) places limitations on these authorities.
First, grants for security enhancements under subsections
(a)(2) and (a)(3) of new section 222 may not be used for
personnel costs or operation or maintenance of facilities,
equipment, or systems. Second, to help protect the security of
the sensitive information contained in a publicly owned
treatment works' vulnerability assessment, the Administrator
may not require an applicant to provide the Administrator with
a copy of a vulnerability assessment as a condition of applying
for or receiving a grant under this section.
Under subsection (d), the total amount of grants made under
new section 222(a)(1) and (a)(2), for conducting a
vulnerability assessment and for implementing preapproved,
basic security enhancements, collectively may not exceed
$150,000 for one publicly owned treatment works. This
limitation applies to an individual wastewater treatment plant
and its associated facilities, and may include the sewage
collection systems, intercepting sewers, outfall sewers,
pumping, power, and other equipment that are hydraulically
connected or are otherwise integral to the wastewater treatment
plant's operations. Certain wastewater utilities, including
some servicing larger cities or geographical areas, may have
two or more wastewater treatment plants within their system. In
such instances, the utility would be eligible under the bill to
apply for grants for each of the wastewater treatment plants
and associated facilities within its system. The funding
limitation would apply separately to each wastewater treatment
plant (including its associated facilities).
In other instances, the governmental entity that owns or
operates a wastewater treatment plant may not be the same
entity that owns or operates the sewerage system that collects
and directs wastewater to the treatment plant. In those
instances, the entity that owns/operates the wastewater
treatment plant and the entity that owns/operates the sewerage
system each would be eligible under the bill to apply for
grants, and the funding limitation would apply separately to
each entity.
There is no limit to funding for additional security
enhancements under subsection (a)(3) of new section 222. The
Federal share of the cost of any activities receiving
assistance under new section 222(a) may not exceed 75 percent.
Subsection (e) authorizes the Administrator to provide
technical assistance on security measures to small publicly
owned treatment works. The term ``small publicly owned
treatment works'' means, in the context of subsection (e), a
publicly owned treatment works that services a population of
fewer than 20,000 persons. Technical assistance provided under
this subsection may include technical assistance programs and
training on conducting a vulnerability assessment and
implementation of security enhancements to reduce
vulnerabilities identified in a vulnerability assessment, and
preliminary engineering evaluations. Such assistance may be
provided by a circuit rider program carried out by a nonprofit
entity.
Subsection (f) authorizes a total of $200 million in
appropriations for providing grants under subsection (a) and up
to $15 million in appropriations for providing technical
assistance under subsection (e). These authorizations are
designed to meet an important one-time need aimed at improving
security at our nation's wastewater treatment plants, and do
not create a permanent Federal program. Wastewater utilities
may obtain loans from state water pollution control revolving
loan funds to make capital improvements to address security
concerns at wastewater treatment plants.
Section 3. Refinement of vulnerability assessment methodology for
publicly owned treatment works
Section 3 of H.R. 866 authorizes $1 million per year for
five years for EPA to make grants to a nonprofit organization
for the improvement of wastewater vulnerability self-assessment
methodologies and tools. The grants provided under this section
may be used for developing and distributing vulnerability self-
assessment methodology software upgrades, improving and
enhancing critical technical and user support functions,
expanding libraries of information addressing both threats and
countermeasures, and implementing user training initiatives.
Such services are to be provided at no cost to recipients.
Hearings, Legislative History, and Committee Consideration
On October 10, 2001, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held a hearing on the security of water
resources infrastructure. Testimony was given by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, a security expert, a representative of local
government, representatives of water and wastewater utilities,
a representative of the chemical industry, and an emergency
planning official.
A nearly identical bill providing for enhanced wastewater
infrastructure security (H.R. 5169) was introduced in the 107th
Congress. The House passed H.R. 5169 on suspension on October
7, 2002.
Representatives Don Young, James L. Oberstar, John J.
Duncan, Jr., and Jerry F. Costello introduced H.R. 866 on
February 13, 2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session on
February 26, 2003, and ordered the bill reported to the House
by voice vote.
Rollcall Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. There
were no recorded votes taken in connection with ordering H.R.
866 reported. A motion to order H.R. 866 reported to the House
was agreed to by voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
Cost of Legislation
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Compliance with House Rule XIII
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office
included below.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objective of this legislation are to
increase the security of publicly owned wastewater treatment
works through the conduct of vulnerability assessments and
implementation of security enhancements for such facilities.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 866
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2003.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 866, the
Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
Mehlman.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 866--Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2003
Summary: CBO estimates that implementing this legislation
would cost about $220 million over the next five years,
assuming the appropriation of the authorized amounts. The funds
would be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
make grants to states, municipalities, or intermunicipal or
interstate agencies to conduct vulnerability assessments at
publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities and to undertake
security enhancements at such facilities. In addition, the
funds would be used by EPA to provide technical assistance to
small publicly owned treatment facilities, such as training and
engineering evaluations of security measures, and to make
grants to nonprofit organizations to conduct self-assessments
of security vulnerabilities.
Enacting H.R. 866 would not affect direct spending or
receipts. H.R. 866 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the federal government: For purposes of
this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill would be enacted
before the end of 2003. CBO estimates that implementing the
bill would cost $220 million over the 2003-2007 period,
assuming appropriation of the amounts authorized for each year.
Those estimated outlays are based on historical patterns for
similar activities. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 866
is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and
environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Grants for Wastewater Treatment Security:
Authorization Level............................................ 200 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 10 100 55 30 5
EPA Technical Assistance:
Authorization Level............................................ 15 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 3 8 4 0 0
Grants for Small Publicly Owned Treatment Facilities:
Authorization level............................................ 1 1 1 1 1
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 1 1 1 1 1
Total Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level........................................ 216 1 1 1 1
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 14 109 60 31 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 866
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. This bill would benefit state and local
governments by authorizing $216 million in 2003 for grants to
conduct vulnerability assessments, implement security
enhancements, provide technical assistance, and to improve
self-assessment methodologies and tools. The recipients of
grants for vulnerability assessments and security enhancements
would be required to match federal funds, but such costs would
be incurred voluntarily.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman;
impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Greg Waring,
impact on the private sector: Jean Talarico.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or
joint resolution of a public character shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. (Public Law 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1994
requires the report of any committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 866 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. (Public Law
104-1).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT WORKS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 222. WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY.
(a) Grants for Vulnerability Assessments and Security
Enhancements.--The Administrator may make grants to a State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency--
(1) to conduct a vulnerability assessment of a
publicly owned treatment works;
(2) to implement security enhancements listed in
subsection (c)(1) to reduce vulnerabilities identified
in a vulnerability assessment; and
(3) to implement additional security enhancements to
reduce vulnerabilities identified in a vulnerability
assessment.
(b) Vulnerability Assessments.--
(1) Definition.--In this section, the term
``vulnerability assessment'' means an assessment of the
vulnerability of a treatment works to actions intended
to--
(A) substantially disrupt the ability of the
treatment works to safely and reliably operate;
or
(B) have a substantial adverse effect on
critical infrastructure, public health or
safety, or the environment.
(2) Identification of methods to reduce
vulnerabilities.--A vulnerability assessment includes
identification of procedures, countermeasures, and
equipment that the treatment works can implement or
utilize to reduce the identified vulnerabilities.
(3) Review.--A vulnerability assessment shall include
a review of the vulnerability of the treatment
works's--
(A) facilities, systems, and devices used in
the storage, treatment, recycling, or
reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial
wastes;
(B) intercepting sewers, outfall sewers,
sewage collection systems, and other
constructed conveyances;
(C) electronic, computer, and other automated
systems;
(D) pumping, power, and other equipment;
(E) use, storage, and handling of various
chemicals; and
(F) operation and maintenance procedures.
(c) Grants for Security Enhancements.--
(1) Preapproved security enhancements.--Upon
certification by an applicant that a vulnerability
assessment has been completed for a treatment works and
that the security enhancement for which assistance is
sought is to reduce vulnerabilities of the treatment
works identified in the assessment, the Administrator
may make grants to the applicant under subsection
(a)(2) for 1 or more of the following:
(A) Purchase and installation of equipment
for access control, intrusion prevention and
delay, and detection of intruders and hazardous
or dangerous substances, including--
(i) barriers, fencing, and gates;
(ii) security lighting and cameras;
(iii) metal grates, wire mesh, and
outfall entry barriers;
(iv) securing of manhole covers and
fill and vent pipes;
(v) installation and re-keying of
doors and locks; and
(vi) smoke, chemical, and explosive
mixture detection systems.
(B) Security improvements to electronic,
computer, or other automated systems and remote
security systems, including controlling access
to such systems, intrusion detection and
prevention, and system backup.
(C) Participation in training programs and
the purchase of training manuals and guidance
materials relating to security.
(D) Security screening of employees or
contractor support services.
(2) Additional security enhancements.--
(A) Grants.--The Administrator may make
grants under subsection (a)(3) to an applicant
for additional security enhancements not listed
in paragraph (1).
(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant
under this paragraph, an applicant shall submit
an application to the Administrator containing
such information as the Administrator may
request.
(3) Limitations.--
(A) Use of funds.--Grants under subsections
(a)(2) and (a)(3) may not be used for personnel
costs or operation or maintenance of
facilities, equipment, or systems.
(B) Disclosure of vulnerability assessment.--
As a condition of applying for or receiving a
grant under this section, the Administrator may
not require an applicant to provide the
Administrator with a copy of a vulnerability
assessment.
(d) Grant Amounts.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
activities funded by a grant under subsection (a) may
not exceed 75 percent.
(2) Maximum amount.--The total amount of grants made
under subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) for one publicly
owned treatment works shall not exceed $150,000.
(e) Technical Assistance for Small Publicly Owned Treatment
Works.--
(1) Security assessment and planning assistance.--The
Administrator, in coordination with the States, may
provide technical guidance and assistance to small
publicly owned treatment works on conducting a
vulnerability assessment and implementation of security
enhancements to reduce vulnerabilities identified in a
vulnerability assessment. Such assistance may include
technical assistance programs, training, and
preliminary engineering evaluations.
(2) Participation by nonprofit organizations.--The
Administrator may make grants to nonprofit
organizations to assist in accomplishing the purposes
of this subsection.
(3) Small publicly owned treatment works defined.--In
this subsection, the term ``small publicly owned
treatment works'' means a publicly owned treatment
works that services a population of fewer than 20,000
persons.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Administrator--
(1) $200,000,000 for making grants under subsection
(a); and
(2) $15,000,000 for providing technical assistance
under subsection (e).
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
* * * * * * *