Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Security remains top issue for government, industry
Security
Greenwire
03/25/2002
Darren Samuelsohn, Greenwire staff writer
More than six months since the Sept. 11 attacks, the nation's water and
wastewater infrastructure has undergone security reviews and an infusion of
federal funds unparalleled in the industry's history. While industry and
government officials have consistently downplayed the likelihood of a
successful, sweeping assault on such a target, they also are operating with last
month's news that overseas terrorist groups have gathered information on U.S.
water supplies and their computer systems.
At a water security seminar last Friday on Capitol Hill, the Environmental
Protection Agency's lead official working on the issue said the newly created
White House Office of Homeland Security has been coordinating the government's
efforts to "improve knowledge" of what to expect in the event of another
terrorist attack. For example, Janet Pawlukiewicz, director of EPA's water
protection task force, said OHS is creating a list of possible contaminants that
could be introduced into the nation's drinking water supplies.
EPA has some 10 employees working on its water-specific security task force,
Pawlukiewicz said. The agency also has collected a "State of Knowledge" report
on water security issues, an analysis that reportedly has not been seen by
anyone outside the government, not even the industry professionals working
closest with EPA on the issue, said Diane Van DeHei, executive director of the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the industry-government liaison
for the formation of a new information sharing system that is expected to go
online by the end of the year.
For the most part, OHS has kept out of the spotlight over the last five months
as it worked on water and other security issues. Offering a glimpse into the new
agency's workings, Van DeHei said she has spoken several times with Richard
Clark, chairman of President Bush's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board and
the lead on cybersecurity measures, and last week met for the first time with
OHS officials to discuss water security. She said it appears OHS has deemed
physical threats its priority while Clark and officials at the FBI focus on
cyberthreats.
Funding matters
On the legislative front, water security issues have been a frontburner topic
since last fall. Senate and House staff have been meeting in conference for
about a month to hammer out their differences on bioterrorism legislation, and a
final deal is expected shortly after Congress reconvenes in early April.
At issue is a House bill, H.R. 3448, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act,
authorize $170 million for vulnerability assessments and call for subsequent EPA
review of those drinking water systems. While the legislation in the Senate, S.
1765, did not include water security language, Environment and Public Works
Committee Chairman Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) and the panel's ranking member, Bob
Smith (R-N.H.), obtained a promise last December from Senate leaders to work
water security issues into their chamber's conference negotiations.
Jeffords is the lead sponsor of S. 1593, which would establish a $60 million
grant program to encourage water systems to use innovative security
technologies; Smith authored S. 1608, which would pave the way for $50 million
in immediate funding for vulnerability assessments.
Addressing water infrastructure -- and security -- in the long term, both the
Senate and House are considering legislation that would reauthorize EPA's
drinking water and wastewater revolving loan accounts by tens of billion of
dollars. Last week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee signed
off on H.R. 3930, the $25 billion Water Quality Financing Act. The bill allows
states to consider anti-terrorism measures as they dole out their share of
federal infrastructure funding for wastewater systems. Meantime, $35 billion
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure legislation that is expected to
move next month out of the Senate Environment Committee does not currently
address security. But Bryan Richardson, a committee staffer, said the issue is
likely to come up as the bill, S. 1961, advances.
In terms of appropriations since Sept. 11, Congress has so far provided about
$90 million to address water security. In a speech before AMWA officials last
week, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman said the agency would begin
distributing grant applications to eligible utilities in the coming weeks. With
homeland security one of President Bush's top budget priorities this year,
Congress is likely to respond with even greater force during this year's
appropriations process. Van DeHei said she was invited to testify next month
before the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Dollars, information en route
Following Sept. 11, Daniel Ryan, director of Dayton, Ohio-based US Filter
Operating Services' environmental health and safety program, said his company
did not have time to wait for EPA or the water trade associations to release
security information. US Filter has 280 wastewater treatment plants nationwide
and the local politicians and media were already querying about safety. Ryan
said US Filter sent out a list of 64 basic security questions to its facility
managers to get them thinking about security; other important coordination
efforts included how to deal with the media, vulnerability assessments and
constant reminders to avoid becoming complacent.
Pawlukiewicz pointed out that EPA will only be able to provide technical and
financial assistance to utilities; the actual "bricks and mortar" will fall on
the companies and municipalities themselves. Training is also key, she said,
referring to numerous seminars taking place across the country. The Association
of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, for example, has held briefings approximately
once every 10 days, with an average attendance of about 150 people, said Ken
Rubin, an AMSA representative and senior partner at the PA Consulting Group.
Advanced training, including webcasts, are expected in the coming months, he
added.
Also in the making is the drinking water Information Sharing Analysis Center, a
concept first envisioned by the Clinton administration-coordinated President's
Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. ISACs are expected for all
industry sectors -- including electricity, banking and transportation -- and
once established, will serve as secure clearinghouses for terrorist threats. Van
DeHei said the water ISAC will complete its design phase in mid-April and be
online by the end of the year. For the time being, the industry has been using
"E-mail trees," she said.
Information flow remains touchy issue
Still unsettled is the contentious debate over information access, especially in
light of the Sept. 11 attacks. Utilities have voiced concern that their
vulnerability assessments could be obtained through the Freedom of Information
Act and would serve as a "roadmap" for terrorists. Environmental and reporter
groups, among others, have questioned the secrecy behind keeping the information
off limits to the public.
Legislation from Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), S. 1456, would work within FOIA's
many exemptions to ensure previously unreleased industry information voluntarily
shared with government did not reach the public. Reps. Tom Davis (R-Va.) and Jim
Moran (D-Va.) have a similar bill, H.R. 2435, in the House. So far, neither bill
has gained momentum. Bush himself said following the attacks that he supported
S. 1456, but Van DeHei, among others, said the administration has not pushed
enough to make it a reality.
Rubin said a drinking water or wastewater utility's customers can play a major
role in the right-to-know debate by keeping close tabs on their neighborhoods
and small-scale targets, such as manhole covers and treatment tanks. Wastewater
managers are sensitive to the right-to-know debate, he added, but they also have
the attitude that only what is legally required will be disclosed. If the public
wants something to be opened, Rubin said it would have to be their prerogative
to come ask for it. "The minute you start talking about it, you create a
security breach," he said.