Several legislative proposals that failed to cross the finish line in 2012 were reintroduced in the House and Senate recently, though their prospects for passage this year are unclear.
H.R. 888, the “General Duty Clarification Act,” would prevent EPA from using Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act to force water utilities and other facilities that store chemicals to adopt so-called “inherently safer technologies” (IST). Sponsored by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), the bill is a preemptive response to environmental groups that have recently pressured EPA to reinterpret its authority under Sec. 112(r) – also known as the general duty clause – to force chemical and water facilities to eliminate their inventories of certain chemicals or otherwise implement an “IST.”
EPA has given no formal indication that it plans to take this route, but the legislation seeks to ensure this by requiring the agency to undertake a formal rulemaking process to clearly define its authority under Section 112(r), and prohibiting EPA from requiring facility owners to consider or implement particular chemical storage or handling “designs, approaches, or technologies” – essentially blocking “IST” mandates.
Another new bill, the “Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act” (H.R. 935/S. 175) would exempt pesticides approved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) from the need to also obtain permits under the Clean Water Act before they are discharged over or near navigable waters. A 2009 court ruling required pesticide applicators – including some drinking water utilities – to obtain both permits, but the requirement has been criticized as duplicative. Similar legislation won approval in the House of Representatives in 2011 before ultimately stalling in the Senate.