Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Democrats Seek to Amend Inhofe Bill
On Wastewater to Add Money, Restrictions
Senate Democrats and Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.) will attempt to amend a wastewater security bill scheduled to be marked up May 15 by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with language that provides slightly more money and more federal oversight, a committee spokesman and a municipal official said May 14.
The committee is scheduled to mark up two bills, the Wastewater
Treatment Works Security Act of 2003 (S. 1039) and the Nuclear Infrastructure
Security Act of 2003 (S. 1043), both of which were introduced May 12 by Sen.
James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the committee chairman.
A third bill, the Chemical Facilities Security Act of 2003 (S. 994), also was
expected to be marked up, but was pulled from consideration after committee
members could not agree on certain provisions (see related story in Table of
Contents under Security).
Jeffords plans to offer a substitute amendment to S. 1039 that consists of a
wastewater security bill he introduced April 3 along with Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.),
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
The Jeffords legislation, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act
of 2003 (S. 779), would authorize $195 million through fiscal year 2008 for
treatment plants to conduct vulnerability assessments and to make security
enhancements. The funding also would cover research into improved security
technologies (65 DEN A-2, 4/4/03 ).
The bill also would provide $20 million through fiscal 2005 to address immediate
security matters. Another $15 million would go to help treatment plants serving
small communities conduct vulnerability assessments and upgrades, bringing the
total authorization to about $230 million.
Separate amendments, some of which reflect individual provisions in the Jeffords
bill, also may be introduced.
The Jeffords bill would be offered as an amendment with some technical changes,
according to a summary of the amendment.
Slightly Less Money in Inhofe Bill
The bill offered by Inhofe May 12 would provide slightly less money--$220
million--and have fewer restrictions.
The bill would cap grant amount available to treatment plants at $150,000, a
limitation that Jeffords would try to remove through another amendment.
Adam Krantz, a spokesman for the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
told BNA that while municipalities would prefer the higher funding levels in the
Jeffords' bill, they do not support the additional requirements in the bill.
Rather, they prefer the provisions in the Inhofe bill, which is similar to
legislation (H.R. 866) passed by the House May 7 that also contains about $220
million for vulnerability assessments and enhancements. That legislation passed
by an overwhelming 413-2 vote (89 DEN A-1, 5/8/03 ).
"There's no reason the Senate shouldn't do what the House did," Krantz said. "It
doesn't make sense to make changes."
Jeffords also intends to offer separate amendments directing that treatment
plants submit copies of their vulnerability assessments to the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.
'Send it to EPA.'
"The Democrats have always said, 'Send it to EPA'," Krantz said. "We don't think
it needs to go to EPA or Homeland Security."
The Inhofe bill specifically states that EPA "may not require an applicant to
provide the Administrator with a copy of a vulnerability assessment."
The Jeffords bill calls for periodic reviews of the vulnerability assessments
and requires the changes be submitted to EPA. It also establishes protocol for
ensuring the assessments are kept in secure locations.
If EPA ascertains that a terrorist threat is "beyond the scope" of a facility's
emergency response plan or the plant does not address deficiencies, the agency
can take enforcement action under provisions of the Jeffords bill.
AMSA, which represents large publicly owned treatment works, would prefer the
Inhofe language that only requires facilities to certify that they have
conducted vulnerability assessments.
"Just certify that they've done it, and that should be what they follow," Krantz
said.
Details on possible amendments to the nuclear security bill were not available
at press time because committee staff were still trying to work out a deal, one
aide said.
By Susan Bruninga