[House Report 117-41]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
117th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 117-41
======================================================================
OCEAN POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT II
_______
May 28, 2021.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. DeFazio, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 587]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 587) to modify permitting
requirements with respect to the discharge of any pollutant
from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant in certain
circumstances, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation........................................... 1
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 5
Legislative History and Consideration............................ 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 6
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 7
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 8
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 8
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 8
Preemption Clarification......................................... 8
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 8
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 587, the ``Ocean Pollution Reduction
Act II,'' introduced by Representative Scott Peters (D-CA), is
to provide an alternative process for the City of San Diego to
comply with the Clean Water Act's permitting requirements for
the continued operation of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment
Plant, while ensuring continued reductions of pollutant
discharges and greater use of reclaimed wastewater associated
with the plant.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 587 seeks to clarify that the City of San Diego,
California, can utilize the standard Clean Water Act National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal
process and does not need a variance application to continue
operating the E.W. Blom Point Loma Metropolitan Wastewater
Treatment Plant (``Point Loma Plant'') and the Point Loma Ocean
Outfall, subject to the implementation of the permitting
requirements specified in the bill.
The Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly
known as the Clean Water Act, prohibits the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters unless such discharges are
covered by a federal permit as well as establishes national
minimum standards for certain discharges, including discharges
from publicly owned treatment works.\1\ Section 301(b)(1)(B)\2\
of the Clean Water Act requires that all publicly owned
treatment works in existence as of July 1, 1977, achieve
effluent limitations based on secondary treatment standards,
established by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and defined pursuant to section
304(d)(1) of the Act.\3\ These limitations and standards are
implemented through an NPDES permit, issued either by the EPA
Administrator or an approved state program, pursuant to section
402 of the Clean Water Act.\4\ The state of California is
currently approved to implement the Clean Water Act NPDES
program in the state.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See 33 U.S.C. 1311(a).
\2\See 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(B).
\3\See https://www.epa.gov/npdes/secondary-treatment-standards.
Secondary treatment is defined in the regulation (40 CFR Part 133) in
terms of effluent quality for total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), and pH; see also 33 U.S.C. 1314(d)(1).
\4\See 33 U.S.C. 1342.
\5\See https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-state-program-authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act also includes a
process for certain publicly owned treatment works that
discharge into marine waters to continue to operate under a
Clean Water Act NPDES permit with a limited variance from the
secondary treatment standards. Section 301(h) authorizes the
EPA Administrator, with state concurrence, to issue such an
NPDES variance for discharges that meet the requirements of
that subsection.\6\ EPA regulations implementing section 301(h)
require that NPDES variances under section 301(h) must also
comply with applicable provisions of state, local, or other
federal laws or Executive Orders, including the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and Title III of
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C.
1431 et seq.).\7\ NPDES permits, including those issued with a
301(h) variance, have a duration of five years and must be
renewed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\33 U.S.C. 1311(h); the statutory requirements for a 301(h)
variance are that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) there is an applicable water quality standard
specific to the pollutant for which the modification is
requested;
(2) the discharge of pollutants in accordance with such
modified requirements will not interfere, alone or in
combination with pollutants from other sources, with the
attainment or maintenance of that water quality which
assures protection of public water supplies and the
protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows
recreational activities, in and on the water;
(3) the applicant has established a system for monitoring
the impact of such discharge on a representative sample of
aquatic biota, to the extent practicable, and the scope of
such monitoring is limited to include only those scientific
investigations which are necessary to study the effects of
the proposed discharge;
(4) such modified requirements will not result in any
additional requirements on any other point or nonpoint
source;
(5) all applicable pretreatment requirements for sources
introducing waste into such treatment works will be
enforced;
(6) in the case of any treatment works serving a
population of 50,000 or more, with respect to any toxic
pollutant introduced into such works by an industrial
discharger for which pollutant there is no applicable
pretreatment requirement in effect, sources introducing
waste into such works are in compliance with all applicable
pretreatment requirements, the applicant will enforce such
requirements, and the applicant has in effect a
pretreatment program which, in combination with the
treatment of discharges from such works, removes the same
amount of such pollutant as would be removed if such works
were to apply secondary treatment to discharges and if such
works had no pretreatment program with respect to such
pollutant;
(7) to the extent practicable, the applicant has
established a schedule of activities designed to eliminate
the entrance of toxic pollutants from nonindustrial sources
into such treatment works;
(8) here will be no new or substantially increased
discharges from the point source of the pollutant to which
the modification applies above that volume of discharge
specified in the permit; and
(9) the applicant at the time such modification becomes
effective will be discharging effluent which has received
at least primary or equivalent treatment and which meets
the criteria established under section 304(a)(1) of the Act
after initial mixing in the waters surrounding or adjacent
to the point at which such effluent is discharged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See 40 CFR 125, Subpart G.
\8\See 33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Point Loma Plant, located in San Diego, California,
began operations in 1963.\9\ The Plant treats approximately 175
million gallons of wastewater per day, generated in a 450-
square-mile area by more than 2.2 million residents.\10\ The
Point Loma Plant operates as a chemically-assisted primary
treatment plant, and is the terminal treatment facility
discharging to the Point Loma Ocean Outfall--a 4.5 mile pipe
that extends outward from the Point Loma Plant and discharges
treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean at a depth of more
than 300 feet.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\https://www.sandiego.gov/public-utilities/customer-service/
water-wastewater-facilities/point-loma.
\10\See id.
\11\See infra at 15. The ocean outfall consists of an original
11,226-foot-long outfall section that was constructed in 1963 and a
12,246-foot-long extension that was added in 1993. The total length of
the outfall system is 23,472 feet, or approximately 4.5 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1979, the City of San Diego applied for a 301(h)
variance, which was approved by EPA and the state.\12\ Since
that time, the Point Loma Plant has generally operated, and is
currently operating, under a section 301(h) permit variance\13\
to discharge their wastewater with less than full secondary
treatment through the Ocean Outfall to the nearby coastal
waters. The current 301(h) variance was issued on October 1,
2017 and expires September 30, 2022.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See United States of America v. City of San Diego, U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, March 31, 1994;
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19501 *; 38 ERC (BNA) 1718.
\13\See Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit for the City of San Diego E.W. Blom
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge for the Pacific Ocean
Through the Point Loma Ocean Outfall (NPDES No. CA0107409), found at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/ca0107409-
point_loma_301h_
decision_and_tdd_2017-08-04.pdf.
\14\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the city of San Diego, because it is
impracticable for the Point Loma Plant to meet the secondary
treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Point Loma
Plant must obtain a section 301(h) variance for its continued
operation.\15\ The current 301(h) variance provides the Point
Loma Plant with a modification related to its discharge levels
for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\The City has expressed concern that local geographic
limitations, including the adjacency of the Point Loma Wastewater
Treatment Plant to the Cabrillo National Monument, the Point Loma
Ecological Reserve, and the U.S. Naval Base at Point Loma, California,
prevent the construction of treatment facilities that would be required
to achieve full compliance with the secondary treatment requirements of
the Clean Water Act. The City has also expressed the view that
establishing a standard that allows for greater use of reclaimed
wastewater to address the long-term water supply needs of the region
makes more practical sense than requiring the treatment of wastewater
that would ultimately be discharged into the Pacific Ocean.
\16\See supra note 15. According to information provided by EPA,
the Point Loma Plant currently removes approximately 80% of TSS, and
BOD removal is approximately 55-60%. Existing secondary treatment
standards require publicly owned treatment works to meet TSS and BOD
removal at 85% minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the city of San Diego is engaged in a long-
term effort to reduce discharges from the Point Loma Plant to
coastal waters while reclaiming treated wastewater for eventual
potable and non-potable reuse in the area.\17\ For example, in
connection with enactment of the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act
(Pub. L. 103-431), the city has constructed treatment
facilities with the capacity for 45,000,000 gallons of
reclaimed wastewater per day, which has also resulted in a
reduction in the discharge of TSS and BOD by the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\See ``Application for Renewal of NPDES CA0107409 and 301(h)
Modified Secondary Treatment Requirements,'' City of San Diego Public
Utilities, Water and Wastewater. January 2015. Accessed at https://
www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/ploovol2_15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2020, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board issued a new NPDES permit for the North City Water
Reclamation and Pure Water Facility (part of San Diego's Pure
Water program) to combine tertiary treated recycled water and
additional highly advanced treatment (reverse osmosis,
oxidation, ultrafiltration, etc.), and then discharge to the
Miramar reservoir for eventual drinking water use.\18\ Once
fully operating, this will re-direct a portion of the Point
Loma discharge to the North City/Pure Water facility. However,
while the ocean discharges from the Point Loma Plant will be
reduced, such discharges will not be eliminated in the
foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\See https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/board_decisions/
adopted_orders/orders2020
.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 587, the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II
The purpose of H.R. 587 is to address the long-term Clean
Water Act permitting requirements for the city of San Diego and
other cities that feed into Point Loma Plant for wastewater
treatment.
H.R. 587 provides for an alternative process for the Point
Loma Plant to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act's
NPDES permitting requirements, other than the existing 301(h)
variance conditions, while ensuring continued reductions of
pollutant discharges and greater use of reclaimed wastewater
associated with the plant. The legislation also eliminates the
need to reapply for the variance specifically for the Point
Loma Plant, and provides direction to EPA for including minimum
treatment levels for the NPDES permit to be issued to Point
Loma Plant.
HEARINGS
For the purposes of rule XIII, clause 3(c)6(A) of the 117th
Congress, no hearings were held to develop or consider H.R. 587
in the 117th Congress, however the Committee held the following
hearing in the 116th Congress:
On February 27, 2020, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held a hearing titled ``Proposals for a Water
Resources Development Act of 2020: Members' Day Hearing.''
Representative Scott Peters testified before the Subcommittee
on the issues addressed within the legislation.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION
H.R. 587 was introduced in the House on January 28, 2021,
by Mr. Peters, Mr. Issa, Ms. Jacobs of California, Mr. Levin of
California, and Mr. Vargas and referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the Committee, H.R.
587 was referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment.
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment was
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 587 on March 24,
2021.
The Full Committee considered H.R. 587 on March 24, 2021,
and ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a
favorable recommendation, by a record vote of 54 yeas and 2
nays (Roll Call Vote No. 17).
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to include the
total number of votes cast for and against on each record 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.
H.R. 587, was ordered to be favorably reported to the House
of Representatives, by a record vote of 54 yeas and 2 nays
(Roll Call Vote No. 17). The vote was as follows:
Vote: 17 Measure: H.R. 587
On: agreeing to H.R. 587 and ordering to be reported to the
House, favorably
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio..................................... Yea Mr. Graves of MO.................. Yea
Ms. Norton...................................... Yea Mr. Young......................... ............
Ms. Johnson of TX............................... Yea Mr. Crawford...................... ............
Mr. Larsen of WA................................ Yea Mr. Gibbs......................... Nay
Mrs. Napolitano................................. Yea Mr. Webster....................... Yea
Mr. Cohen....................................... Yea Mr. Massie........................ Yea
Mr. Sires....................................... Yea Mr. Perry......................... Nay
Mr. Garamendi................................... Yea Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............ Yea
Mr. Johnson of GA............................... Yea Mr. Katko......................... Yea
Mr. Carson...................................... Yea Mr. Babin......................... Yea
Ms. Titus....................................... Yea Mr. Graves of LA.................. Yea
Mr. Maloney of NY............................... Yea Mr. Rouzer........................ Yea
Mr. Huffman..................................... Yea Mr. Bost.......................... Yea
Ms. Brownley.................................... Yea Mr. Weber of TX................... Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL................................ ............ Mr. LaMalfa....................... Yea
Mr. Payne....................................... Yea Mr. Westerman..................... Yea
Mr. Lowenthal................................... Yea Mr. Mast.......................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier.................................. Yea Mr. Gallagher..................... ............
Mr. Lynch....................................... Yea Mr. Fitzpatrick................... Yea
Mr. Carbajal.................................... ............ Miss Gonzalez-Colon............... Yea
Mr. Brown....................................... Yea Mr. Balderson..................... Yea
Mr. Malinowski.................................. ............ Mr. Stauber....................... ............
Mr. Stanton..................................... Yea Mr. Burchett...................... Yea
Mr. Allred...................................... Yea Mr. Johnson of SD................. Yea
Ms. Davids of KS................................ Yea Mr. Van Drew...................... Yea
Mr. Garcia of IL................................ Yea Mr. Guest......................... ............
Mr. Delgado..................................... Yea Mr. Nehls......................... Yea
Mr. Pappas...................................... Yea Ms. Mace.......................... ............
Mr. Lamb........................................ Yea Ms. Malliotakis................... Yea
Mr. Moulton..................................... ............ Ms. Van Duyne..................... ............
Mr. Auchincloss................................. Yea Mr. Gimenez....................... ............
Ms. Bourdeaux................................... Yea Mrs. Steel........................ Yea
Mr. Kahele...................................... Yea
Ms. Strickland.................................. Yea
Ms. Williams of GA.............................. Yea
Ms. Newman...................................... Yea
Vacancy......................................... ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES
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.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
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 enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 587 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 13, 2021.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
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. 587, the Ocean
Pollution Reduction Act II.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Stephen
Rabent.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program controls water pollution by regulating point sources of
discharge into the waters of the United States. Under that
program, publicly owned wastewater treatment works must meet
secondary treatment standards specified by law. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) generally delegates the
authority to administer the NPDES program to individual states.
Under current law, the Point Loma Plant in San Diego,
California, can apply to be exempted from secondary treatment
standards if it meets certain conditions. H.R. 587 would
eliminate the need for an application and would allow that
exemption under the plant's normal NPDES permit if it meets
additional conditions that include implementing pretreatment
and water reuse programs and providing ocean monitoring data
and analysis to EPA.
Using information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing
the bill would have an insignificant effect on EPA's costs to
administer the NPDES program over the 2021-2026 period. CBO
expects that the agency's costs to administer the Point Loma
Plant secondary treatment standard waiver would shift to
administering and evaluating its performance under the NPDES
permit.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Stephen Rabent.
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Director of Budget Analysis.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to
provide an alternative process for the city of San Diego to
achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act's permitting
requirements for the continued operation of the Point Loma
Wastewater Treatment Plan, while ensuring continued reductions
of pollutant discharges and greater use of reclaimed wastewater
associated with the plant.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision
of H.R. 587 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program, a program that was included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS
In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule
XXI.
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 1974
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 finds that H.R. 587 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 were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO 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).
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that this bill may be cited as the
``Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II''.
Sec. 2. San Diego Point Loma permitting requirements
Subsection (a) authorizes the EPA Administrator, in
coordination with the State, to issue an NPDES permit (under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act) for a discharge from the
Point Loma Plant that complies with the requirements of
subsection (b).
Subsection (b) directs that a permit issued pursuant to
this legislation for the Point Loma Plant require the permittee
to--
(1) Maintain the current Point Loma Ocean Outfall;
(2) Attain explicit annual limits for the discharge of TSS,
which decrease from a level of 12,000 metric tons on the date
of enactment to not more than 9,942 tons by December 31, 2027;
(3) Comply with designated discharge limits of TSS on a 30-
day average;
(4) Require the removal of not less than 80 percent of TSS
from the discharge on a monthly average, and not less than 58
percent of BOD on an annual average;
(5) Attain all other effluent limitations of secondary
treatment, as determined by the Administrator;
(6) Comply with other applicable requirements of sections
401 (state certification requirements), 402 (NPDES permit
requirements), and 403 (ocean outfall requirements) of the
Clean Water Act;
(7) Comply with pretreatment requirements of the Clean
Water Act;
(8) Provide the Administrator with 10 consecutive years of
ocean monitoring data to assist in determining compliance with
this Act and the Clean Water Act; and
(9) Demonstrate that at least 83,000,000 gallons per day on
an annual average of water suitable for potable reuse will be
provided by December 31, 2035.
Subsection (c) requires the Administrator, in coordination
with the State, to develop and incorporate into the NPDES
permit milestones for compliance with the requirements of this
Act.
Subsection (d) allows the permittee to pursue the
construction of facilities to comply with the normal secondary
treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Subsection (e) defines the terms ``Administrator'',
``biochemical oxygen demand'', ``City'', ``Point Loma Plant'',
and ``State''.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
As reported by the Committee, H.R. 587 makes no changes in
existing law.
[all]