...DEP would have to inventory chemical storage tanks around the state, and write new safety standards and begin new periodic inspections. Water utilities would have to complete new plans spelling out how they would protect drinking water supplies, and conduct studies of potential alternate supplies or backup water supply storage. The Judiciary Committee voted down an amendment to require West Virginia American Water to add a back-up intake at its regional facility along the Elk River, where the Jan. 9 Freedom Industries spill of Crude MCHM occurred. Judiciary members also expanded the bills provisions to allow some information about potential threats to public water systems to be kept confidential by companies and government officials. Current federal law requires the state law to make public chemical inventory lists that companies file every year with the State Emergency Response Commission. But, that federal law and its companion state rules, allow companies to keep confidential the exact location of chemical storage. The new bill expands that, allowing companies to seek -- and agencies to approve -- withholding from the public any of the submitted information if good cause is found ... for reasons of security or other legitimate public interest concern. Pat McGinley, who teaches environmental law and public records law at the West Virginia University College of Law, said the current bill is far too broad in allowing information about potential threats to water supplies to be kept confidential. McGinley noted that the states Freedom of Information Act already contains provisions allowing certain information to be kept confidential for homeland security purposes. This is yet another effort to water down the broad public right of access to government regulation originally granted by the FOIA, McGinley said. People who live downstream from chemical storage tanks should be entitled to know what chemicals are located near their water supply. Before beginning their amendments, Finance committee members picked away at the potential costs of the bill, noting among other things that estimates of those costs for both DEP and DHHR have not been updated since fiscal notes were issued in conjunction with a Senate version of the legislation. DEP Secretary Randy Huffman said his agency had initially put its costs at about $1 million, and that the money would come from a fee to be collected from the owners and operators of chemical tanks regulated by the bill. Under the current legislation, details of the fee are left to DEP to put together during rulemaking. There will be additional staff required, Huffman said. We will be processing permits and conducting inspections we arent doing now. Regarding the Judiciary Committees language for additional monitoring at the West Virginia American Water plant, Delegate Nancy Guthrie, D-Kanawha, recalled that lawmakers heard testimony that equipment alone for that might cost only $150,000 -- an amount she said wasnt draconian. But Laura Jordan, a spokeswoman for West Virginia American Water, told committee members the language in the bill is simply impractical and unfeasible for any water system to do, because of the costs....
Posted on: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:35:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015