FLOOR STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
ON H.R. 2868, THE “CHEMICAL AND WATER SECURITY ACT OF 2009”
NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of H.R. 2868, the “Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009”.
I join my Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, in thanking the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for including an amended text of my bill, H.R. 2883, the “Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2009,” as title III of H.R. 2686.
Enactment of the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act, in concert with the underlying language produced by the Committees on Homeland Security and Energy and Commerce, will preserve the historical relationship between wastewater utility operators and the Environmental Protection Agency in meeting both the security enhancements called for in this measure, as well as the goals and purposes of the Clean Water Act.
In the wake of September 11th, our nation has learned the importance of protection of our critical infrastructure.
In the weeks following 9/11, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held several hearings on the overall vulnerability of infrastructure to terrorist attack, including the vulnerability of the nation’s wastewater utilities.
Since these hearings, the position of our Committee, both under Democratic and Republican majorities, has been consistent.
We must strive to reduce the vulnerability of wastewater infrastructure and to minimize the potential adverse impact to human health, critical infrastructure, and the environment that could occur from an intentional act.
According to EPA, there are over 16,000 publicly owned treatment works in the United States, as well as 100,000 major pumping stations, 600,000 miles of sanitary sewers, and another 200,000 miles of storm sewers.
Taken together, these systems represent the backbone of the nation’s primary sewage treatment capacity, as well as an extensive network that runs near or beneath key buildings and roads, and along side many critical communication and transportation networks.
Significant damage to the nation’s wastewater treatment facilities or collection systems could result in the 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 areas, and disruption to commerce, the economy, and the nation’s way of life.
In the same light, certain wastewater treatment works throughout the United States use chemicals in their disinfectant process, such as chlorine gas, that pose a threat to public health or the environment if improperly released into the environment.
Title III of this bill, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act, ensures that all large- and medium-sized wastewater treatment facilities – those that treat at least 2.5 million gallons of sewage per day – perform a nationally-consistent, threshold security assessment, and take proactive steps to reduce their overall vulnerability.
According to EPA, the provisions of Title III of this Act should cover approximately 17 percent of the 16,000 publicly owned treatment works in this country; yet, addresses an estimated 70 percent of the population served by municipal wastewater treatment.
For those facilities that possess sufficient quantities of potentially-dangerous chemicals, such as chlorine gas, this legislation requires an assessment of whether “inherently safer technologies” can be implemented to reduce the overall risk posed by the facility
Yet, while it is appropriate that we take action to improve the overall safety and security of our nation’s wastewater treatment facilities, we must also be aware of the unique role and public service played by our water and wastewater utilities.
Unlike typical chemical manufacturing facilities, water and wastewater facilities must remain in constant operation, and cannot simply be turned off.
Madam Chairwoman, a majority of the nation’s wastewater is treated by publicly owned treatment works.
Discharges from these facilities, more commonly known as sewage treatment plants, are typically subject to regulation under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program, established under the Clean Water Act.
Today, all but 5 States have received EPA approval to manage their point-source discharge programs.
However, whether it is an approved State or EPA, the appropriate permitting authority is responsible for establishing designated uses for waters and for establishing water quality criteria sufficient to protect those uses.
The permitting authority then issues Clean Water Act permits for facilities, such as sewage treatment plants, that limit the amount of pollution they may legally discharge in order to meet the established water quality criteria and uses.
During formulation of the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure worked with the Committees on Homeland Security and Energy and Commerce to ensure that the security related requirements of this bill not negatively impact the ability of wastewater treatment facilities to meet their Clean Water obligations.
Equally as important, this bill preserves the historic oversight role of EPA and approved States in implementation of the security related requirements of this legislation.
Madam Chairwoman, I have heard that this legislation will place an unnecessary financial burden on local governments or ratepayers, or that the inherently safer technologies called for in this legislation cannot be implemented.
To answer this first concern, Title III authorizes $1 billion over five years in grants to publicly owned treatment works to carry out the requirements of the title.
State and local governments would be eligible for up to 75 percent of the costs to carry out vulnerability assessments, site security and emergency response plans, and to implement measures to improve the overall security of publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities.
This legislation also provides grant funding for emergency response training to first responders and firefighters who may be called upon in the event of a terrorist act.
In response to the second concern about inherently safer technologies, I would highlight the findings of a 2006 report of the Government Accountability Office which noted that over half (or 56 percent) of the largest wastewater utilities use an alternative to chlorine gas in their disinfection process.
Of the remaining facilities surveyed by GAO in 2006, an additional 20 percent of facilities that use chlorine gas had reported plans to switch to another form of disinfectant.
One key example is here in the nation’s capital – just across the Anacostia River. In 2001, the Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant (which serves the Capitol complex) switched from chlorine gas to a concentrated bleach formula for disinfection of wastewater.
While the changes had been planned for some time, heightened security concerns following 9/11, including the potential impact of a terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol complex, led facility personnel to accelerate the implementation of the inherently safer technology.
If the switch from chlorine gas to other, inherently-safer products was important enough to protect Members of Congress, it should be equally as important to protecting our families throughout the United States.
Madam Chairwoman, this legislation has been endorsed by the leading wastewater utility organizations, including the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and the American Public Works Association.
I support passage of this legislation, and yield back the balance of my time.
