House Report 117-41 — Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II (May 28, 2021)
Summary
House Report 117–41, dated May 28, 2021, is the report of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on H.R. 587, the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II, which the committee reports favorably without amendment. The purpose section states that the bill, introduced by Representative Scott Peters, would provide an alternative process for the City of San Diego to comply with the Clean Water Act's permitting requirements for the continued operation of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. The report states that the bill was introduced on January 28, 2021, and that the full committee ordered it reported on March 24, 2021, by a record vote of 54 yeas and 2 nays.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Crpt Crpt 117Hrpt41 Crpt 117Hrpt41
- Case
- Crpt Crpt 117Hrpt41 Crpt 117Hrpt41
Cite this document
“House Report 117-41 — Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II (May 28, 2021).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-crpt-117hrpt41-crpt-117hrpt41/
, SHA-256 f38e014cc336809c74d6726d794d6819a76e5f6cac06316367e2e7f11e0fa82c.Full text
117TH CONGRESS REPORT
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES !
1st Session 117–41
OCEAN POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT II
MAY 28, 2021.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DEFAZIO, from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 587]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 587) to modify permitting requirements
with respect to the discharge of any pollutant from the Point Loma
Wastewater Treatment Plant in certain circumstances, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation ............................................................................................. 1
Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2
Hearings ................................................................................................................... 5
Legislative History and Consideration .................................................................. 5
Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5
Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 6
Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 7
Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 8
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ... 8
Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 8
Preemption Clarification ......................................................................................... 8
Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 8
Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 587, the ‘‘Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II,’’
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with REPORTS
introduced by Representative Scott Peters (D–CA), is to provide an
19–006
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Jun 03, 2021 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR041.XXX HR041
2
alternative process for the City of San Diego to comply with the
Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements for the continued oper-
ation of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, while ensur-
ing continued reductions of pollutant discharges and greater use of
reclaimed wastewater associated with the plant.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 587 seeks to clarify that the City of San Diego, California,
can utilize the standard Clean Water Act National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal process and
does not need a variance application to continue operating the E.W.
Blom Point Loma Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant
(‘‘Point Loma Plant’’) and the Point Loma Ocean Outfall, subject to
the implementation of the permitting requirements specified in the
bill.
The Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known
as the Clean Water Act, prohibits the discharge of pollutants into
navigable waters unless such discharges are covered by a federal
permit as well as establishes national minimum standards for cer-
tain discharges, including discharges from publicly owned treat-
ment works.1 Section 301(b)(1)(B) 2 of the Clean Water Act requires
that all publicly owned treatment works in existence as of July 1,
1977, achieve effluent limitations based on secondary treatment
standards, established by the Administrator of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), and defined pursuant to section
304(d)(1) of the Act.3 These limitations and standards are imple-
mented through an NPDES permit, issued either by the EPA Ad-
ministrator or an approved state program, pursuant to section 402
of the Clean Water Act.4 The state of California is currently ap-
proved to implement the Clean Water Act NPDES program in the
state.5
Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act also includes a process for
certain publicly owned treatment works that discharge into marine
waters to continue to operate under a Clean Water Act NPDES per-
mit with a limited variance from the secondary treatment stand-
ards. Section 301(h) authorizes the EPA Administrator, with state
concurrence, to issue such an NPDES variance for discharges that
meet the requirements of that subsection.6 EPA regulations imple-
1 See 33 U.S.C. 1311(a).
2 See 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(B).
3 See https://www.epa.gov/npdes/secondary-treatment-standards. Secondary treatment is de-
fined in the regulation (40 CFR Part 133) in terms of effluent quality for total suspended solids
(TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and pH; see also 33 U.S.C. 1314(d)(1).
4 See 33 U.S.C. 1342.
5 See https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-state-program-authority.
6 33 U.S.C. 1311(h); the statutory requirements for a 301(h) variance are that:
(1) there is an applicable water quality standard specific to the pollutant for which
the modification is requested;
(2) the discharge of pollutants in accordance with such modified requirements will not
interfere, alone or in combination with pollutants from other sources, with the attain-
ment or maintenance of that water quality which assures protection of public water
supplies and the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows recreational activities, in and on the water;
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with REPORTS
(3) the applicant has established a system for monitoring the impact of such dis-
charge on a representative sample of aquatic biota, to the extent practicable, and the
scope of such monitoring is limited to include only those scientific investigations which
are necessary to study the effects of the proposed discharge;
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Jun 03, 2021 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 5601 E:\HR\OC\HR041.XXX HR041
3
menting section 301(h) require that NPDES variances under sec-
tion 301(h) must also comply with applicable provisions of state,
local, or other federal laws or Executive Orders, including the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and Title
III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (16
U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).7 NPDES permits, including those issued with
a 301(h) variance, have a duration of five years and must be re-
newed.8
The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Point Loma Plant, located in San Diego, California, began
operations in 1963.9 The Plant treats approximately 175 million
gallons of wastewater per day, generated in a 450-square-mile area
by more than 2.2 million residents.10 The Point Loma Plant oper-
ates as a chemically-assisted primary treatment plant, and is the
terminal treatment facility discharging to the Point Loma Ocean
Outfall—a 4.5 mile pipe that extends outward from the Point Loma
Plant and discharges treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean at
a depth of more than 300 feet.11
In 1979, the City of San Diego applied for a 301(h) variance,
which was approved by EPA and the state.12 Since that time, the
Point Loma Plant has generally operated, and is currently oper-
ating, under a section 301(h) permit variance 13 to discharge their
wastewater with less than full secondary treatment through the
Ocean Outfall to the nearby coastal waters. The current 301(h)
(4) such modified requirements will not result in any additional requirements on any
other point or nonpoint source;
(5) all applicable pretreatment requirements for sources introducing waste into such
treatment works will be enforced;
(6) in the case of any treatment works serving a population of 50,000 or more, with
respect to any toxic pollutant introduced into such works by an industrial discharger
for which pollutant there is no applicable pretreatment requirement in effect, sources
introducing waste into such works are in compliance with all applicable pretreatment
requirements, the applicant will enforce such requirements, and the applicant has in
effect a pretreatment program which, in combination with the treatment of discharges
from such works, removes the same amount of such pollutant as would be removed if
such works were to apply secondary treatment to discharges and if such works had no
pretreatment program with respect to such pollutant;
(7) to the extent practicable, the applicant has established a schedule of activities de-
signed to eliminate the entrance of toxic pollutants from nonindustrial sources into such
treatment works;
(8) here will be no new or substantially increased discharges from the point source
of the pollutant to which the modification applies above that volume of discharge speci-
fied in the permit; and
(9) the applicant at the time such modification becomes effective will be discharging
effluent which has received at least primary or equivalent treatment and which meets
the criteria established under section 304(a)(1) of the Act after initial mixing in the
waters surrounding or adjacent to the point at which such effluent is discharged.
7 See 40 CFR 125, Subpart G.
8 See 33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(B).
9 https://www.sandiego.gov/public-utilities/customer-service/water-wastewater-facilities/point-
loma.
10 See id.
11 See infra at 15. The ocean outfall consists of an original 11,226-foot-long outfall section that
was constructed in 1963 and a 12,246-foot-long extension that was added in 1993. The total
length of the outfall system is 23,472 feet, or approximately 4.5 miles.
12 See United States of America v. City of San Diego, U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, March 31, 1994; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19501 *; 38 ERC (BNA) 1718.
13 See Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with REPORTS
Permit for the City of San Diego E.W. Blom Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge
for the Pacific Ocean Through the Point Loma Ocean Outfall (NPDES No. CA0107409), found
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/ca0107409-point_loma_301h_
decision_and_tdd_2017-08-04.pdf.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Jun 03, 2021 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR041.XXX HR041
4
variance was issued on October 1, 2017 and expires September 30,
2022.14
According to the city of San Diego, because it is impracticable for
the Point Loma Plant to meet the secondary treatment require-
ments of the Clean Water Act, the Point Loma Plant must obtain
a section 301(h) variance for its continued operation.15 The current
301(h) variance provides the Point Loma Plant with a modification
related to its discharge levels for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD).16
In addition, the city of San Diego is engaged in a long-term effort
to reduce discharges from the Point Loma Plant to coastal waters
while reclaiming treated wastewater for eventual potable and non-
potable reuse in the area.17 For example, in connection with enact-
ment of the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (Pub. L. 103–431), the
city has constructed treatment facilities with the capacity for
45,000,000 gallons of reclaimed wastewater per day, which has also
resulted in a reduction in the discharge of TSS and BOD by the
facility.
In May 2020, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board issued a new NPDES permit for the North City Water Rec-
lamation and Pure Water Facility (part of San Diego’s Pure Water
program) to combine tertiary treated recycled water and additional
highly advanced treatment (reverse osmosis, oxidation,
ultrafiltration, etc.), and then discharge to the Miramar reservoir
for eventual drinking water use.18 Once fully operating, this will
re-direct a portion of the Point Loma discharge to the North City/
Pure Water facility. However, while the ocean discharges from the
Point Loma Plant will be reduced, such discharges will not be
eliminated in the foreseeable future.
H.R. 587, the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II
The purpose of H.R. 587 is to address the long-term Clean Water
Act permitting requirements for the city of San Diego and other cit-
ies that feed into Point Loma Plant for wastewater treatment.
H.R. 587 provides for an alternative process for the Point Loma
Plant to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act’s NPDES
permitting requirements, other than the existing 301(h) variance
conditions, while ensuring continued reductions of pollutant dis-
charges and greater use of reclaimed wastewater associated with
the plant. The legislation also eliminates the need to reapply for
the variance specifically for the Point Loma Plant, and provides di-
14 See id.
15 The City has expressed concern that local geographic limitations, including the adjacency
of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Cabrillo National Monument, the Point
Loma Ecological Reserve, and the U.S. Naval Base at Point Loma, California, prevent the con-
struction of treatment facilities that would be required to achieve full compliance with the sec-
ondary treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act. The City has also expressed the view
that establishing a standard that allows for greater use of reclaimed wastewater to address the
long-term water supply needs of the region makes more practical sense than requiring the treat-
ment of wastewater that would ultimately be discharged into the Pacific Ocean.
16 See supra note 15. According to information provided by EPA, the Point Loma Plant cur-
rently removes approximately 80% of TSS, and BOD removal is approximately 55–60%. Existing
secondary treatment standards require publicly owned treatment works to meet TSS and BOD
removal at 85% minimum.
17 See ‘‘Application for Renewal of NPDES CA0107409 and 301(h) Modified Secondary Treat-
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with REPORTS
ment Requirements,’’ City of San Diego Public Utilities, Water and Wastewater. January 2015.
Accessed at https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/ploovol2_15.pdf.
18 See https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders2020
.html.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Jun 03, 2021 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR041.XXX HR041
5
rection to EPA for including minimum treatment levels for the
NPDES permit to be issued to Point Loma Plant.
HEARINGS
For the purposes of rule XIII, clause 3(c)6(A) of the 117th Con-
gress, no hearings were held to develop or consider H.R. 587 in the
117th Congress, however the Committee held the following hearing
in the 116th Congress:
On February 27, 2020, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held a hearing titled ‘‘Proposals for a Water Re-
sources Development Act of 2020: Members’ Day Hearing.’’ Rep-
resentative Scott Peters testified before the Subcommittee on the
issues addressed within the legislation.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION
H.R. 587 was introduced in the House on January 28, 2021, by
Mr. Peters, Mr. Issa, Ms. Jacobs of California, Mr. Levin of Cali-
fornia, and Mr. Vargas and referred to the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure. Within the Committee, H.R. 587 was re-
ferred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment was
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 587 on March 24,
2021.
The Full Committee considered H.R. 587 on March 24, 2021, and
ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a favorable
recommendation, by a record vote of 54 yeas and 2 nays (Roll Call
Vote No. 17).
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representa-
tives requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to report
and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the
names of those members voting for and against.
H.R. 587, was ordered to be favorably reported to the House of
Representatives, by a record vote of 54 yeas and 2 nays (Roll Call
Vote No. 17). The vote was as follows:
Vote: 17 Measure: H.R. 587
On: agreeing to H.R. 587 and ordering to be reported to the
House, favorably
Member Vote Member Vote
Mr. DeFazio ....................................................... Yea Mr. Graves of MO ............................................ Yea
Ms. Norton ........................................................ Yea Mr. Young ........................................................ ...................
Ms. Johnson of TX ............................................ Yea Mr. Crawford .................................................... ...................
Mr. Larsen of WA ............................................. Yea Mr. Gibbs ......................................................... Nay
Mrs. Napolitano ................................................ Yea Mr. Webster ...................................................... Yea
Mr. Cohen ......................................................... Yea Mr. Massie ....................................................... Yea
Mr. Sires ........................................................... Yea Mr. Perry .......................................................... Nay
Mr. Garamendi ................................................. Yea Mr. Rodney Davis of IL .................................... Yea
Mr. Johnson of GA ............................................ Yea Mr. Katko ......................................................... Yea
Mr. Carson ........................................................ Yea Mr. Babin ......................................................... Yea
Ms. Titus .......................................................... Yea Mr. Graves of LA .............................................. Yea
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with REPORTS
Mr. Maloney of NY ............................................ Yea Mr. Rouzer ........................................................ Yea
Mr. Huffman ..................................................... Yea Mr. Bost ........................................................... Yea
Ms. Brownley .................................................... Yea Mr. Weber of TX ............................................... Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL .............................................. ................... Mr. LaMalfa ..................................................... Yea
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Jun 03, 2021 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR041.XXX HR041
6
Member Vote Member Vote
Mr. Payne ......................................................... Yea Mr. Westerman ................................................. Yea
Mr. Lowenthal ................................................... Yea Mr. Mast .......................................................... Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier .................................................. Yea Mr. Gallagher ................................................... ...................
Mr. Lynch .......................................................... Yea Mr. Fitzpatrick .................................................. Yea
Mr. Carbajal ..................................................... ................... Miss González-Colón ........................................ Yea
Mr. Brown ......................................................... Yea Mr. Balderson .................................................. Yea
Mr. Malinowski ................................................. ................... Mr. Stauber ...................................................... ...................
Mr. Stanton ...................................................... Yea Mr. Burchett ..................................................... Yea
Mr. Allred .......................................................... Yea Mr. Johnson of SD ........................................... Yea
Ms. Davids of KS ............................................. Yea Mr. Van Drew ................................................... Yea
Mr. Garcı́a of IL ................................................ Yea Mr. Guest ......................................................... ...................
Mr. Delgado ...................................................... Yea Mr. Nehls ......................................................... Yea
Mr. Pappas ....................................................... Yea Ms. Mace ......................................................... ...................
Mr. Lamb .......................................................... Yea Ms. Malliotakis ................................................ Yea
Mr. Moulton ...................................................... ................... Ms. Van Duyne ................................................. ...................
Mr. Auchincloss ................................................ Yea Mr. Gimenz ....................................................... ...................
Ms. Bourdeaux .................................................. Yea Mrs. Steel ......................................................... Yea
Mr. Kahele ........................................................ Yea
Ms. Strickland .................................................. Yea
Ms. Williams of GA .......................................... Yea
Ms. Newman ..................................................... Yea
Vacancy ............................................................ ...................
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s over-
sight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Represent-
atives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison pre-
pared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under sec-
tion 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely
submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the re-
port. Such a cost estimate is included in this report.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the
enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 587 from the Director of the Con-
gressional Budget Office:
U.S. CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
Washington, DC, May 13, 2021.
Hon. PETER A. DEFAZIO,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has pre-
pared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 587, the Ocean Pollution
Reduction Act II.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased
to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Stephen Rabent.
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with REPORTS
Sincerely,
PHILLIP L. SWAGEL,
Director.
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Jun 03, 2021 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR041.XXX HR041
7
Enclosure.
I H.R. 587, Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II
' As ordered reported by the Hoose Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on March 24, 2021
By Fiscal Year, MH!ions of Dollars 2021 2021-2026 2021-2031
Direct Spending (Outlays) 0 0 0
Revem,es 0 0 0
Increase or Decrease H
in the Delle.it 0 0 0
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program controls water pollution by regulating point sources of dis-
charge into the waters of the United States. Under that program,
publicly owned wastewater treatment works must meet secondary
treatment standards specified by law. The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) generally delegates the authority to administer
the NPDES program to individual states.
Under current law, the Point Loma Plant in San Diego, Cali-
fornia, can apply to be exempted from secondary treatment stand-
ards if it meets certain conditions. H.R. 587 would eliminate the
need for an application and would allow that exemption under the
plant’s normal NPDES permit if it meets additional conditions that
include implementing pretreatment and water reuse programs and
providing ocean monitoring data and analysis to EPA.
Using information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing
the bill would have an insignificant effect on EPA’s costs to admin-
ister the NPDES program over the 2021–2026 period. CBO expects
that the agency’s costs to administer the Point Loma Plant sec-
ondary treatment standard waiver would shift to administering
and evaluating its performance under the NPDES permit.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Stephen Rabent. The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director
of Budget Analysis.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goal
and objective of this legislation is to provide an alternative process
for the city of San Diego to achieve compliance with the Clean
Water Act’s permitting requirements for the continued operation of
the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plan, while ensuring con-
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with REPORTS
tinued reductions of pollutant discharges and greater use of re-
claimed wastewater associated with the plant.
Insert offset folio 9 here HR41.001
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Jun 03, 2021 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR041.XXX HR041
8
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision of H.R.
587 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the federal govern-
ment known to be duplicative of another federal program, a pro-
gram that was included in any report from the Government Ac-
countability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public
Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED
TARIFF BENEFITS
In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule XXI.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal man-
dates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(Public Law 104–4).
PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the
report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a
statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is in-
tended to preempt state, local, or tribal law. The Committee finds
that H.R. 587 does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or
accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Con-
gressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1).
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that this bill may be cited as the ‘‘Ocean
Pollution Reduction Act II’’.
Sec. 2. San Diego Point Loma permitting requirements
Subsection (a) authorizes the EPA Administrator, in coordination
with the State, to issue an NPDES permit (under section 402 of the
Clean Water Act) for a discharge from the Point Loma Plant that
complies with the requirements of subsection (b).
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with REPORTS
Subsection (b) directs that a permit issued pursuant to this legis-
lation for the Point Loma Plant require the permittee to—
(1) Maintain the current Point Loma Ocean Outfall;
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Jun 03, 2021 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR041.XXX HR041
9
(2) Attain explicit annual limits for the discharge of TSS, which
decrease from a level of 12,000 metric tons on the date of enact-
ment to not more than 9,942 tons by December 31, 2027;
(3) Comply with designated discharge limits of TSS on a 30-day
average;
(4) Require the removal of not less than 80 percent of TSS from
the discharge on a monthly average, and not less than 58 percent
of BOD on an annual average;
(5) Attain all other effluent limitations of secondary treatment,
as determined by the Administrator;
(6) Comply with other applicable requirements of sections 401
(state certification requirements), 402 (NPDES permit require-
ments), and 403 (ocean outfall requirements) of the Clean Water
Act;
(7) Comply with pretreatment requirements of the Clean Water
Act;
(8) Provide the Administrator with 10 consecutive years of ocean
monitoring data to assist in determining compliance with this Act
and the Clean Water Act; and
(9) Demonstrate that at least 83,000,000 gallons per day on an
annual average of water suitable for potable reuse will be provided
by December 31, 2035.
Subsection (c) requires the Administrator, in coordination with
the State, to develop and incorporate into the NPDES permit mile-
stones for compliance with the requirements of this Act.
Subsection (d) allows the permittee to pursue the construction of
facilities to comply with the normal secondary treatment require-
ments of the Clean Water Act.
Subsection (e) defines the terms ‘‘Administrator’’, ‘‘biochemical
oxygen demand’’, ‘‘City’’, ‘‘Point Loma Plant’’, and ‘‘State’’.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
As reported by the Committee, H.R. 587 makes no changes in ex-
isting law.
Æ
SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with REPORTS
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:29 Jun 03, 2021 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6611 E:\HR\OC\HR041.XXX HR041
File and source
- File
- CRPT_crpt-117hrpt41_crpt-117hrpt41.pdf
- Size
- 402,371 bytes
- SHA-256
- f38e014cc336809c74d6726d794d6819a76e5f6cac06316367e2e7f11e0fa82c
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov