Underground Construction - May 2019 - 10

WASHINGTONWATCH

Stephen Barlas | Washington Editor

Sewer Construction Grants Targeted
for Big but Speculative Increase
There seems to be a good chance that Congress
will pass a reauthorization of the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF), given strong bi-partisan
support for the Water Quality Protection and Job
Creation Act of 2019 (H.R. 1497). The bill would authorize $4 billion for the EPA sewer loan program in
each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024. That is nearly
four times the $1.694 billion Congress appropriated
in FY19. But one does not have to go too far out on
a limb to predict Congress will not appropriate a
300-percent increase annually in fiscal 2020-'24.
The bill has several other provisions aimed at
helping local communities repair aging sewer systems, for example, extending the authorization of
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal
Grants at $225 million per year through 2024. But
the $4 billion annual funding level for the CWSRF,
which, again, must be appropriated separately by
Congress, is the marquee provision in the bill, and
supported by top Democrats and Republicans
on the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. The CWSRF is popular with cities and
counties around the country because it provides
loans at interest rates below 1 percent over 20 to 30
years, which looks good compared to the 4½ to 5
percent municipalities would otherwise have to pay.
But given the huge sewer construction needs in
the U.S., witnesses at the hearings of the Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee in March
argued that even $4 billion a year for the CWSRF
won't make much of a dent in the financial needs
of wastewater systems nationwide.
"And while we are grateful for the sums of
money in this consideration, I think all will agree,
these amounts are not enough to address every
wastewater infrastructure investment need, so
reliance on a more flexible model to improve
water quality can be achieved through integrated
planning and other potential tools," David Condon,
mayor of Spokane, Wash., told the T&I water
resources and environment subcommittee.
The EPA has had an "integrated planning"
program in place for a decade, where the agency
tries to ease permitting requirements for cities and
counties with effluent contamination by allowing
them to use alternative methods such as green
infrastructure and projects to reclaim, recycle or

MAY 2019 | UConOnline.com

reuse water. This helps governments avoid hiking
up sewer rates on residents by pocketing savings
from rainfall recycling, for example.
Last year, Congress passed legislation to put a
statutory, integrated planning process in EPA. The
idea was to give local governments even more
leeway to spend on hard, sewer infrastructure
by helping them avoid consent decrees with the
Justice Department, resulting in fines and the
need to immediately address contaminants the
conventional, expensive way.

Congress Begins to Consider
Changes to Pipeline Safety Law
Congress had its first hearings in early April, in
both the House and Senate, on reauthorization
of the Pipeline Safety Act, which loses its current
authority on Sept. 30, 2019. There will perhaps be
some new safety requirements passed, given that
both Democrats and Republicans are unhappy
with the continuing rash of accidents. But the
industry may get some new leeway to use some
new engineering technologies, which the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
has been pushing for.
The good news is that Rep. Daniel Lipinski
(D-Ill.), chairman of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee's railroads, pipelines and
hazardous materials subcommittee seems open
to industry-requested changes.
"It is important to listen to the reasonable
requests of industry stakeholders," he said. But he
also noted that according to PHMSA (Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration), there
have been 11,992 incidents, 317 deaths, 1,302
injuries and $8.1 billion in damage from pipeline
accidents between 1999 and 2018.
The new pipeline bill almost surely to emerge
from Congress by September will probably be a
mild one, light on new safety or environmental
requirements and light on new transmission
company mandates. That is because PHMSA has
failed to complete several significant rulemakings
mandated by the last two pipeline reauthorizations
in 2011 and 2016.
That failure has drawn the most fire from both
Democrats and Republicans at hearings so far.

One of the biggest pending rulemakings, this one
mandated by the 2011 law, is a gas transmission
rule that would lay down procedures for how
pipelines expand their integrity management programs beyond high-consequence areas and how
they retest maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP) for pre-1970 pipelines.
Robin Rorick, vice president, midstream and
industry operations, American Petroleum Institute,
who testified at the House subcommittee hearings
on April 2, pressed the subcommittee to allow
pipeline companies to simplify the "burdensome
approval process" companies must go through to
be able to use alternative safety technology.
"Establishing clear parameters and deadlines
associated with PHMSA's review, notification
and approvals of alternative technology will help
provide more certainty in the process, and allow
operators to utilize the latest cutting-edge technologies to further pipeline safety," he stated.
Rorick also pushed for changes to current
regulations that say pipeline operators must report
pipeline incidents meeting certain conditions,
including a clean-up cost of $50,000 or higher.
INGAA, too, supports those kinds of changes.
But pipeline companies may be in somewhat of a
defensive crouch, given likely efforts by environmentalists and public interest groups to advocate
for restrictions on methane releases and changes
to the agency's risk-benefit analysis requirements,
which some view as an impediment to faster
PHMSA action of the 2011 and 2016 mandates.
Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline
Safety Trust, pointed to "the unique and onerous
cost-benefit requirements PHMSA finds itself
saddled with." PHMSA is the only federal agency
that must assess the risk of a new regulation based
on a cost-benefit standard.
Osman says INGAA would oppose the kind
of cost-benefit rule changes Weimer suggests.
Osman agrees that PHMSA's statutes are more
specific than cost-benefit regulations at other
federal safety agencies. But he argues that more
specific rules reduce the time for rulemaking,
because there is more certainty about what must
be done, and the chances of litigation based on
any final rule are reduced. *

http://www.UConOnline.com

Underground Construction - May 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Underground Construction - May 2019