```

[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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                

```