[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 124 (Thursday, September 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10445-S10446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the urgent need 
for this legislation. The Nation's wastewater treatment works--POTWs--
provide a vital service to our Nation. They ensure that municipal and 
industrial waste is cleaned to a level safe enough to be released back 
into the Nation's waterways.
  After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, much more focus was 
placed on the Nation's water and wastewater facilities. POTWs not only 
release treated effluent into the Nation's waters but also consist of 
miles of pipes that run underground and are often large enough for 
someone to stand in. They are literally underground roadways.
  In the 107th Congress, the House of Representatives passed by voice 
vote legislation--H.R. 5169--to provide POTWs with the resources they 
needed to conduct vulnerability assessments and secure their 
facilities. The bill, H.R. 866, was again introduced in the 108th 
Congress and passed by a vote of 413-2, with every Democrat who voted 
supporting the bill. I was pleased to introduce the companion to this 
legislation, S. 1039 with my colleague and then subcommittee Chairman, 
Mike Crapo. Last year, despite reporting the bill on a bipartisan vote 
of 13 to 6, members of the Senate minority objected to Senate 
consideration of S. 1039.
  S. 2781 is a variation of S. 1039 with some important improvements, 
like the addition of site security plans and a more streamlined 
grantmaking progress. Senator Lincoln Chafee, chairman of the 
Fisheries, Wildlife and Water Subcommittee and Senator Lisa Murkowski, 
a distinguished member of the EPW Committee joined me in sponsoring S. 
2781.
  Our bill passed the EPW Committee on a voice vote. Unfortunately, 
once again, my colleague from Vermont has objected to consideration of 
wastewater security legislation by the full Senate.
  My colleagues in the minority argue that my bill is insufficient 
because it does not impose on POTW's unfunded federal mandates and 
because it does not assume that local officials are ignoring the 
security of their facilities.
  POTWs are arms of local government. They are largely owned and 
operated by the Nation's cities and towns. In 1995 Congress passed the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in which we pledged not to impose costly 
regulatory burdens on our partners in local government. Just as it is 
our obligation as U.S. Senators to serve the public good, preserve the 
public trust and protect the citizenry, so it is the obligation of 
locally elected, appointed and employed officials.
  Why do so many of my colleagues assume that we at the Federal level 
care more about the citizens of the Nation's towns than the locally 
elected officials do? Why do so many of them assume that they know more 
about how to evacuate citizens, secure local treatment plants and 
protect local citizens than the very people who live in those towns 
whose jobs it is to protect them?
  S. 2781 would simply provide towns with resources to conduct 
vulnerability assessments and to secure their facilities. It provides 
funds to research the means to secure the collection systems that are 
made up of the miles of underground pipes. There are logistical and 
financial problems with trying to secure these systems that need to be 
addressed, particularly before imposing an unfunded Federal mandate on 
the Nation's towns. My bill would support the already ongoing 
activities of many of the national wastewater associations and the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to develop assessment tools and 
industry security standards as well as conduct security trainings. The 
national water associations make up the Security Coordinating Council 
and regularly meet with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency 
charged with overseeing security at POTWs. The SCC and EPA are 
developing a sector security plan to, among other things, establish 
measures of security improvements.
  My colleagues will argue that this is not enough. Local governments 
cannot be trusted to proceed on their own with a little Federal 
guidance because to date, they really have not done anything to secure 
their facilities. However, one need look no further than a March 2006 
GAO report to see how much in fact they are doing. According to GAO, 74 
percent of the largest 206 treatment works had completed or were in the 
process of completing a vulnerability assessment. Further, the majority 
of treatment works had made significant improvements to the physical 
security of their facility. They did so after careful review of their 
individual communities' needs. Most importantly, they have done so out 
of concern for their citizens, not in response to a Federal mandate.
  My colleagues will also turn this discussion not into one about 
security but one about chlorine. Chlorine is by far the most effective 
disinfectant available and it is the least expensive. During these 
times of aging systems, growing Federal regulations and limited 
resources, cost is an important consideration. Washington, DC's 
treatment works, Blue Plains, spent $12.5 million to change 
technologies. San Jose, CA, spent $5 million to switch from gaseous 
chlorine to sodium hypochlorite. The city of Wilmington, DE, spent 
$160,000 to switch. However, there is much more to their story than 
that cost figure. Wilmington already had in place a sodium hypochlorite 
system that was serving as backup to its gaseous chlorine system. 
Further, Wilmington will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars more 
each year in operations and maintenance costs.
  There are other considerations that must be factored in as well, such 
as downstream effects of a chlorine alternative. For example, the 
switch from chlorine to chloramines in Washington, DC's drinking water 
system was found to cause lead to leach out of service pipes and into 
the faucets of homes and businesses. Thus, decisions about chlorine 
must be fully evaluated and must be site-specific. Many POTWs are 
already undergoing these evaluations. After careful review of cost, 
technical feasibility and safety considerations, and without the 
presence of a Federal mandate on technology, 116 of the 206 largest 
POTWs do not use gaseous chlorine: According to the GAO report, another 
20 plan to switch to a technology other than chlorine. To sum, nearly 
two-thirds of the Nation's largest POTWs are not using or will soon 
stop using chlorine. Those who continue to use chlorine have taken 
steps to ensure the chlorine is secure. My bill would provide POTWs who 
decide for themselves to switch treatment technologies with grant money 
to make the switch. However, my bill maintains trust in local officials 
who know best their water, the community and their security needs.

[[Page S10446]]

  Let me be clear. This is an important security bill and I regret that 
for the second Congress in a row my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are obstructing it. Members of the minority have criticized the 
chemical security legislation for not covering these facilities. This 
legislation has basically passed the House of Representatives twice. 
The minority party in the Senate is blocking this important security 
bill.

                          ____________________