An EPA official testifying at a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committeehearing last week refused to say whether the agency plans to impose “inherently safer technology” (IST) mandates on chemical storage facilities through Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act. Any new EPA rulemaking under Section 112(r) would impact water facilities that are subject to the law because they store threshold amounts of gaseous chlorine.
Under harsh questioning from EPW Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Barry Breen of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response said the agency is “looking at a number of potential policy options” to improve security at chemical facilities. While Breen said the concept of IST “has some attraction,” he would not commit EPA to a timeframe for deciding on any new rulemaking.
Section 112(r), also known as the general duty clause, requires covered facilities to complete a risk management plan (RMP) and gives EPA broad authority to require chemical facility owners to “design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent [chemical] releases.” Organizations that support tough chemical restrictions have recently looked to this provision as a way to enact IST mandates without congressional action, and last summer a coalition of these groups petitioned EPA to write new IST rules for facilities covered by Section 112(r).
At last week’s hearing, which focused on the response to the April fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas, Senator Boxer said EPA should act now to impose new chemical storage rules through Section 112). Republican lawmakers, however, have previously warned that they would fight any move by EPA to use the Clean Air Act to regulate chemical storage practices.