[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 130 (Monday, October 7, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7022-H7024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY ACT OF 2002
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5169) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
enhance the security of wastewater treatment works.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5169
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Wastewater Treatment Works
Security Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY.
Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``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 work'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 the applicant has
completed a vulnerability assessment 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 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.''.
SEC. 3. REFINEMENT OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
FOR PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS.
(a) Grants.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency may make grants to a nonprofit organization
for the improvement of vulnerability self-assessment
methodologies and tools for publicly owned treatment works,
including publicly owned treatment works that are part of a
combined public wastewater treatment and water supply system.
(b) Eligible Activities.--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 shall be provided at no cost to
recipients.
[[Page H7023]]
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2007. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5169, the Wastewater
Treatment Works Security Act of 2002.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, made the identification
and protection of critical infrastructure a national priority and
taught our Nation to take a broader look at our vulnerabilities. A good
deal of planning and protection of our Nation's crucial infrastructure
is now under way as a result of those tragic events.
Only limited attention has been given to security issues associated
with our Nation's wastewater treatment plants. Sewer pipes form a vast
underground network that can provide a terrorist with access to many
public buildings, metropolitan centers, private businesses, residential
neighborhoods, military installations, transportation systems and urban
centers.
A wastewater treatment system itself could also be a target of an
attack, with significant public health and environmental impacts.
H.R. 5169 will help communities address these security concerns by
authorizing $200 million for grants to wastewater utilities to conduct
vulnerability assessments and implement security enhancements at their
facilities, $15 million for technical assistance to small wastewater
facilities on security measures, $5 million for the further development
and refinement of vulnerability self-assessment methodologies and tools
for use by wastewater facilities. These authorizations are designed to
help wastewater treatment utilities take immediate and necessary steps
to improve security at their facilities.
These authorizations do not create a new, ongoing infrastructure
assistance program or create any new Federal mandates. I urge all
Members to support this very bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in support of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5169, the Wastewater
Treatment Works Security Act of 2002. This is a bipartisan bill that
would authorize $200 million in grants from the EPA to States and local
government entities to conduct vulnerability assessments of wastewater
treatment facilities and to take steps to reduce identified
vulnerabilities. The legislation is similar to the approach taken for
vulnerability assessments of drinking water facilities in the
bioterrorism legislation signed into law earlier this summer.
Mr. Speaker, in the wake of September 11, we have learned that the
Nation's wastewater treatment plants are potentially vulnerable to
terrorist activities. Many plants have treatment redundancies, but,
often, they have single points of failure. These plants, in addition to
the possibility of disruption and environmental catastrophe, often use
hazardous materials in the treatment process, and those things
certainly also need to be safeguarded.
In order to alleviate these concerns, under H.R. 5169 the EPA would
be authorized to provide grants for three purposes: conduct
vulnerability assessments to publicly-owned treatment works; to
implement certain pre-approved security enhancements that have been
identified in a vulnerability assessment; and, three, to implement any
other security enhancement measures identified in a vulnerability
assessment.
This legislation would also authorize $15 million to provide
technical assistance to small communities, those serving fewer than
20,000 individuals, and $1 million annually for 5 years development and
dissemination of computer software, data and vulnerability assessment.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the funding provisions for vulnerability
assessments and security enhancements contained in this legislation
have been drafted as an amendment to the Clean Water Act with the
intent of ensuring that the Davis-Bacon Act would apply to any
federally funded work that meets the definition of construction. This
approach has been confirmed through staff conversations with
representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I certainly
would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we had also hoped to bring up under regular order other
legislation which would go to the water infrastructure and economic
security particularly of our Nation, the Water Resources Development
Act of 2002. The bill itself is in pretty good form in terms of
projects. Many Members have vital infrastructure projects included in
that bill.
The bill did not, because of some controversy and concern on the
committee, include any amendments to the current authority of the Corps
of Engineers to conduct these projects and did not go to concerns a
number of Members have regarding the need for independent peer review
of projects and better cost benefit analyses.
That bill was scheduled to come up just prior to this legislation
under suspension of the rules which would have been opposed on this
side by the minority, and I am pleased to see that the bill has been
pulled, but, hopefully, it has only been pulled to be brought up later
in the week during regular order with amendments allowed from Members
on this side of the aisle who have expressed concerns regarding, again,
the peer review and independent analysis of projects.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my fellow Oregonian's
courtesy in allowing me to speak on this; and I would rise first to
express my appreciation for the leadership of our subcommittee, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman, for the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for work that has been done on our
subcommittee this session.
This is important work, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the water resources
of this country. The bill we have before us today, H.R. 5169, is an
example of where we have been able to hone in on a problem to be able
to deal with meaningful solutions, advance them in a bipartisan and
expeditious fashion. I plan on supporting it today.
I wanted to add my voice here publicly on the floor to what I have
said before our full committee and before the subcommittee, where I
have expressed my appreciation for the way in which the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) have
been able to bring together the disparate voices dealing with water
resources. These are areas that are not without controversy. They are
complex, they are expensive, and they touch the lives and livelihoods
of virtually every family and every business in America. I think
because of my colleagues' good work it has been given more of the
attention that it deserves, not just in the aftermath of some
horrendous tropical storm where maybe we have dodged a bullet or in the
course of some sad scandal that appears in a newspaper where the
process has broken down and it brings disrepute on our system here, and
my colleagues have focused the attention of the subcommittee on how to
fix the problem.
I am here today not just to support the bill and to thank them but to
hope that the leadership of the full committee and of the House is
mindful of what they have done, is mindful of the legislation that is
in, if my colleagues will pardon the expression, the pipeline from the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
{time} 1115
The most significant example of that is the Water Resources
Development Act, which is 90 percent finished; and we were promised in
subcommittee, at the staff level and at the full committee, an
opportunity to bring these issues to the floor, to have a fair and
honest debate and let the chips fall where they may.
[[Page H7024]]
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that as a result of the record
that the chairman and ranking member have compiled before our
subcommittee, as a result of the hard work that has been done
throughout the Congress and frankly in the outside world with our
friends, not just in the environmental community, I have had these
conversations with General Flowers since soon after his appointment, he
too wants to change the way that business is done; he wants to make
sure that we are respectful of the tax dollar and of the environmental
concerns to bring forward a new era of water resources activities with
the Corps of Engineers and with the Federal Government. But in order
for that to happen, we have got to bring these issues to the floor, and
we need to realign what Congress is doing.
I reject the notion that problems with water resources lie solely at
the feet of the Corps of Engineers. There is over a 200-year history of
that agency performing admirably. There have been problems. Some of the
problems on the floor we are dealing with. Again we did this with our
committee last session, dealing with the problems in the Everglades.
But frankly we are putting $8.5 billion in the Everglades as a down
payment to change some of what we did to it in the first place. We need
to have this discussion. We need to bring the product of our
subcommittee to the floor and be able to deal with these issues
meaningfully and honestly.
It is time for Congress to get its act together, because frankly some
of what people feel in some instances are scandals and problems with
the Corps of Engineers I think are a result of past practices and the
traditional cross-currents they face. In no small measure it is
pressure from individual Members of Congress. We need to have this
discussion here; we need to help the Corps of Engineers; we need to be
part of the solution, not continuing to be part of the problem.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by expressing again my appreciation to the
subcommittee chair and ranking member. I pledge my efforts to continue
to work with them, with a group of Members of Congress who have
organized the Corps Reform Caucus, to be able to make sure that this
Congress does not adjourn without considering the fruits of their hard
work. It is time to allow that on the floor. I look forward to working
with them so that we can have other successes like we have here with
H.R. 5169.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To conclude this, let me first of all just say that I would like to
thank the gentleman from Oregon for his kind comments in regard to this
legislation and the WRDA bill. Most of his concerns relate to the WRDA
bill, the Water Resources Development Act, which was pulled; and it is
still my hope that we can reach some type of consensus agreement on
that bill before this session ends. There are very serious and
heartfelt concerns that Chairman Young has concerning that bill and we
will have to see if those can be addressed. But certainly the gentleman
from Oregon has been one of the most hardworking and dedicated members
of our subcommittee, and I appreciate that very much.
Also, I want to thank Chairman Young, ranking member Oberstar, and
also the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for their work on this
legislation. This is an example of the bipartisan legislation of which
our full committee is so proud. We have worked together to produce a
very good bill, a very necessary bill that will help wastewater
treatment facilities and municipalities and local governments all over
this country. I think this is legislation that all of us can support.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5169.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________