The Article Critique is required to be a minimum of two pages to a maximum of four pages, double-spaced, APA style, from the journals and articles available in our CSU Library Databases. The article should deal with any of the material presented in the first three units of this course. The article itself must be more than one page in length. The article critique should include the following components: have worked for Policy fíriefing Senate Bill Aims to Prevent Chemical Contamination of Surface Water recently occurred in West Virginia and interrupted water deliveries to approximately 300,000 of that states residents has led to the introduction of federal legislation aimed at preventing the recurrence of such events. Although improved protection of surface water enjoys broad support, questions have arisen as to who should oversee and fijnd the additional regulatory efforts called for in the bill. On January 9 it was discovered that thousands of gallons of chemicals used in coal processing had leaked from storage facilities at a tank farm located along the Elk River in Charleston, West Virginia. The chemicals entered the waterway approximately 1.5 mi upstream of a public water supply intake, forcing officials to recommend that residents of a ninecounty area in and around Charleston not use their drinking water. Lasting for more than a week, this situation caused considerable concern about health effects and spurred calls for regulatory protections. On January 27 Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) introduced the Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act of 2014 (S. 1961), legislation that aims to protect surface water from contamination from chemical storage facilities. The bill would revise the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish state programs for overseeing and inspecting chemical storage facilities that are deemed to pose a risk to public water sources. Within one year of enactment of the legislation, states would have to set requirements for chemical storage facilities covered by the new programs. These requirements would address such topics as acceptable standards of good design, construction, or maintenance, along with leak detection, spill and overfill control, inventory control, inspections of facility integrity. and life-cycle maintenance, according to the legislation. Additional requirements would pertain to emergency response and communication plans, employee training and safety plans, and the financial responsibility of the owners of chemical storage facilities. States would share with drinking water providers the emergency response plans for chemical storage facilities located within the same watershed, along with an inventory of each chemical stored at each facility. Under S. 1961 states also would impose minimum inspection requirements for chemical storage facilities covered by the new program. In particular, facilities regarded by states as potential contamination sources under existing drinking water protection plans would have to be inspected every thtee years, while all other facilities would have to be inspected every five years. The legislation does not stipulate the entity that would conduct such inspections. What is more, ownership of chemical storage facilities covered by the state ptogtams could not be transferred unless the facility in question had been inspected and the new owner agreed to take appropriate measures to address the results of the inspection within 30 days of assuming ownership. In the event of an emergency, a drinking water provider would be able to take such legal steps as seeking a restraining order or a temporary or permanent injunction to address any activity or facility that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons served by the water provider, according to S. 1961. Meanwhile, states forced to conduct emergency response activities as a result of the release of chemicals from a storage facility would have the right to recover from the facility owner any costs associated with the response. The Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act of 2014 was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is chaired by Senatot Batbara Boxer (D-California), a cosponsor of the bill. On February 4 that committees Water and Wildlife Subcommittee held a hearing to investigate the chemical spill in West Virginia. Discussing the accident in Charleston, Senator Ben Cardin (D-Marylan
d), the subcommittee chair, noted that the existing regulatory framework for ensuring public health did not work on January ninth. Rather, the system failed, he said. This assessment was seconded by Erik Olson, the senior strategic director for health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council, of New York City. Testifying before the subcommittee, Olson voiced his support for S. 1961, although he contended that inspections of chemical storage facilities should be conducted annually rather than, as called for in the bill, every thtee or five years. He also called upon Congress to provide increased funding for treatment facilities as part of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, noting that such funding would help communities install treatment systems better able to protect people from contaminants in sutface water. In the event of a chemical spill to surface waters, drinking water providers would benefit from having advance information about the types of chemicals present in their watersheds, said Brent Fewell, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Troutman Sanders LLP. Testifying on behalf of United Water, of Harrington Park, New Jersey, Fewell expressed support for the legislations provisions calling for states to share with drinking water providers information about chemicals stored in their watersheds. However, Fewell voiced concern that water utilities serving large areas might be inundated with more information than they could handle. It will do no good to simply dump reams of paper and data on these systems and expect the problem to go away, he said. Instead, priority should be given to providing utilities with information about the chemical storage facilities that are closest to their drinking water sources, Fewell noted. Some witnesses advised the senators to exercise legislative restraint rather than hurriedly pass a bill in the wake of the Charleston spill. For example, Richard Faulk, a partner in the Washington, D.C, law firm of Hollingsworth LLP, argued that local and state officials in West Virginia should be allowed to investigate the causes of the recent accident and develop responses that address the circumstances there. A one-size-fits-all federal approach may sometimes even reduce safety by preempting broader or more effectively tailored solutions that are already working, Faulk said. Boxet rebuffed such a hands-off approach, maintaining that the threat of chemical spills nationwide necessitated a federal response. Weve got a massive problem, she said, noting that no firm figures exist regarding the number of aboveground storage tanks that are located near drinking water supplies. We need an assessment of the extent to which such storage facilities pose a threat to water supplies, Boxer said, arguing that S. 1961 would provide the best way to achieve this goal. The question of who is to pay for the regulatory activities called for in S. 1961 was raised in a February 3 letter to the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee sent by the American Water Works Association, of Denver, and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, of Washington, D.C. Much like the federal government, most state governments are operating under very tight or declining budgets, the groups stated in their letter. Therefore, any new chemical facility-monitoring program enacted tinder {the Safe Drinking Water Act] must include a sufficient authorization to offset at least some of the implementation costs. Otherwise, these new activities will come at the expense of other ongoing water quality oversight activities or badly needed infrastructure investments. As introduced, S. 1961 includes no provisions authorizing additional fianding to cover the activities it would require of states. Others question whether the Safe Drinking Water Act is the appropriate legislative vehicle for a new program intended to regulate chemical storage facilities. For example, Jim Taft, the executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, which has its headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, supports the overall goals of S. 1961 but notes, We are concerned about state drinking water programs being the implementer of such a program. State drinking water progtams oversee approximately 150,000 public water systems, Taft says, but have no experience collecting chemical inventories and inspecting chemical storage facilities. WAY LANDERS Jay Landers is a contributing