As Greenpeace and other environmental organizations continue to lobby EPA to reinterpret its authority under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act to allow it to mandate the use of so-called “inherently safer technologies” (IST) at chemical and water facilities, some Republicans in Congress are warning that they will block any attempts to expand federal power in this area.
Earlier this month, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) said that he is working on legislation that would refine the “general duty clause” of Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, which gives EPA general authority to prevent the accidental release, and minimize the consequences of any release, of “extremely hazardous substances” from facilities that hold them above certain quantities. According to Rep. Pompeo, his legislation would clarify that Section 112(r) provides no defined chemical “safety threshold” that EPA may enforce – which could effectively block EPA from using the section to mandate IST usage.
This is not to suggest that Republicans in Congress believe that new legislation is necessary to prevent IST mandates through Section 112(r). Last month, several GOP leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to warn the agency that they “do not support the use of [Sec. 112(r)] to address site security from terrorist attacks at chemical facilities.” The letter, which is available online athttp://amwa.net/IST6-12, also said that EPA should “decline proposals for such new regulation.”
But the opposite message was delivered at a June 12 news conference led by Greenpeace and other anti-chemical organizations, which have argued that Section 112(r) already gives EPA sufficient authority to force hazardous chemical handlers to eliminate their inventories altogether. The green groups were joined by former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who said that EPA’s lack of such IST mandate power represents “a gaping hole in our security.”
Greenpeace and these other organizations have renewed their push for IST mandates through the Clean Air Act because they have been unsuccessful in getting Congress to approve new legislation that would subject chemical inventories to increased federal oversight. No such IST legislation is on the congressional agenda for the remainder of the year, and EPA has given no indication that it intends to reinterpret Section 112(r), at least prior to the November elections.