New And Precise Article Critic
New And Precise Article Critic
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:
A brief introduction of the article
Analysis of the key points in the article
Application and comparison of some points in the article that might be applied to the company you work for, or
have worked for
Summary of the article’s conclusions and your own opinions
the article is:
Policy fíriefing
Senate Bill Aims to Prevent Chemical
Contamination of Surface Water
IHE CHEMICAL spill that
‘ recently occurred in West
Virginia and interrupted
water deliveries to approximately
300,000 of that
state’s 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 committee’s Water
and Wildlife Subcommittee held a
hearing to investigate the chemical spill
in West Virginia. Discussing the accident
in Charleston, Senator Ben Cardin
(D-Maryland), 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 legislation’s
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.
[ 1 4 ] C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g M A R C H2 0 1 4
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. “We’ve 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
editor to Civil Engineering
