BNA

Municipal wastewater treatment agencies say they oppose chemical security legislation that would require publicly owned treatment plants to use safer chemicals or processes, saying local officials should be able to choose their treatment methods.

The National Association of Clean Water Agencies told the leading members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in a letter Aug. 3 that Congress should not dictate that water utilities use “inherently safer technology” in an effort to secure the treatment plants from terrorist attack.

The letter, signed by NACWA Executive Director Ken Kirk, followed a July 28 committee hearing on protecting America's water facilities that addressed legislation sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) (144 DEN A-11, A-9, 7/29/10).

The Secure Water Facilities Act (S. 3598) would extend and expand chemical plant security regulations now in place for chemical plants to wastewater and drinking water treatment facilities. The bill also would require all regulated plants to consider using inherently safer technology, also known as IST. Certain high-risk plants would have to make changes.

“NACWA does not support a federal mandate to require implementation of IST and we certainly would not support the emergence of legislation that places an IST requirement on the water sector and not on the chemical sector,” said the letter, sent to Environment Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member.

John Krohn, NACWA manager of legislative affairs, told BNA Aug. 4 the Environment Committee, which has jurisdiction over clean water and drinking water, is expected to mark up the Lautenberg bill following the August recess.

Krohn told BNA that a 2009 informal survey of local wastewater treatment plant owners and operators indicated they already are using IST voluntarily in their treatment process if it meets the needs of the utility.

NACWA acknowledged in the letter that concerns have been raised that water and wastewater treatment facilities should comply with federal security standards to ensure their treatment cannot be compromised. The association said it supports this overall objective, but any such program “must be balanced with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and key site-specific considerations.”

When deciding which treatment method to use, factors such as climate, physical limitation relating to the plant's location, cost, safety, and compliance with the Clean Water Act are considered, the letter said.

“Based on this wide variety of factors, use of an IST approach may not be possible for all wastewater utilities,” the letter said.
Any security legislation enacted should provide funding to help utilities meet federal requirements, NACWA added.

Prior to the hearing, drinking water facility representatives also sent the committee letters expressing concerns about IST.

Water Treatment Plants Currently Exempt
Publicly owned treatment works and community water systems, which can handle large volumes of chemicals, are exempt from current chemical security regulations, which also do not contain an IST provision. The chemical security law, which is set to expire Oct. 4, was enacted in October 2006 as part of a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. DHS in 2007 issued Interim Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Standards, commonly referred to as CFATS.

The House of Representatives in November 2009 passed chemical security legislation (H.R. 2868) that would expand coverage to include water treatment plants and IST, among other provisions (214 DEN A-11, 11/9/09).

The version of H.R. 2868 approved by the Senate Homeland Security Committee July 28 would extend current regulations for three years. It does not contain an IST provision and does not cover water treatment plants. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I/D-Conn.), the committee chairman, has said he supports the IST provision and will push for its inclusion on the Senate floor (144 DEN A-11, 7/29/10).

The committee-passed bill was a substitute measure sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins (D-Maine).