Two bills introduced in the House and Senate this month would seek to protect sources of drinking water against chemical spills by establishing new state oversight and inspection programs focused on chemical storage facilities and by providing more information to water utility operators about substances stored upstream from their intake structures. The new legislation proposed these and other measures in response to the January 9 chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia.
Receiving most attention thus far is S. 1961, the “Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act,” introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on January 27. The bill would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to require regular state inspections of any chemical storage facility that “poses a risk of harm” to a nearby public water system. Chemical facility owners would have to meet minimum leak detection, spill control, and employee training standards, and would have to complete emergency response plans to guide spill response activities.
Manchin’s bill would not impose any new requirements on community water systems, but chemical storage facilities would have to provide information to nearby water utilities about “the potential toxicity” of each chemical held on-site, and “safeguards or other precautions … to detect, mitigate, or otherwise limit the adverse effects” of a chemical release. The current version of the bill would not, however, require a chemical facility to notify a downstream water system when it discovers a spill has occurred.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is a cosponsor of S. 1961, and said during a February 4 hearing on the West Virginia spill that her panel will markup the bill “soon.” Committee staff later said a markup could occur as early as March, though no firm date has been identified.
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) followed up with a parallel bill on February 10. H.R. 4024, the “Ensuring Access to Clean Water Act,” includes a similar state chemical storage facility oversight program to what is proposed in Manchin’s bill, but her version would build the program on state authority under the Clean Water Act rather than SDWA. H.R. 4024 also more specifically targets chemical facilities that could pose a risk to nearby navigable waters used for water supply purposes – in place of S. 1961’s broader focus on chemical facilities that could threaten public water systems.
The path forward for Capito’s bill is unknown at this point, as in the immediate aftermath of the West Virginia spill House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reacted coolly to the need for new laws or regulations. It therefore remains to be seen whether he would allow H.R. 4024 to receive a vote on the House floor.
AMWA and other water sector associations have held several meetings with congressional staff to discuss the proposals and suggest improvements, such as adding a requirement that chemical facilities notify downstream water systems as soon as possible after a chemical spill is detected. AMWA has also urged lawmakers to address potential liability issues that could arise when community water systems are made aware that certain chemicals are stored upstream. These points were reflected in a letter AMWA and AWWA sent to senators in advance of the EPW panel’s February 4 hearing.