The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee on July 31 released a committee report summarizing legislation the panel approved earlier this year following the chemical spill that contaminated the drinking water supplies of Charleston, West Virginia. The report includes language recommended by AMWA to make clear that the bill imposes no responsibility on drinking water systems to preemptively take action under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) against an upstream chemical facility that could pose a threat to water supplies.
As approved by the EPW Committee in April, the “Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act” (S. 1961) would direct states to establish new oversight and inspection programs for chemical storage facilities that could threaten water systems, and would require these facilities to meet minimum leak detection, spill control, and employee training standards. It has yet to be considered by the full Senate.
While AMWA and other water sector stakeholders generally supported the bill, some concerns were raised about a section that would grant water utilities the ability to commence a civil action under SDWA to stop “any activity or facility that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons who are supplied” by the water system. SDWA currently only grants EPA this civil action power, and some utilities feared the new language could force water systems to monitor conditions of nearby chemical facilities, or be held responsible in the event of a future incident.
Senators included language in the bill text stating water systems would not be required to commence any civil action, but AMWA requested further clarification in the committee report. AMWA’s recommended language, which lawmakers added to the report, states the provision “does not, under any circumstances, obligate or confer any responsibility upon a water utility to commence a civil action” against a nearby chemical storage facility.
Senate Democratic leaders have announced no timeframe for bringing S. 1961 to a vote on the Senate floor, and it is uncertain whether the bill would attract the 60 votes necessary to advance through the chamber. A similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives (H.R. 4024) has not advanced out of committee.