19–006

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 

2

(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’’. 

3

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 

4

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 onetime 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 

5

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. 

6

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).

7

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. 

8

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 EN- HANCEMENTS.—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; 

9

(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.—

10

(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 TREAT- MENT 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.

* * * * * * *

Æ