Clarifying the EPA's Role in Regulating Hazardous Chemical Facilities (S. 88)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
What is S. 88?
(Updated March 15, 2018)
This bill deals with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of chemical plants and language in the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the bill addresses a provision known as the "General Duty Clause." At present, the clause states that facilities using or possessing chemicals—such as oil and gas producers, refineries, and chemical manufacturers —have a “general duty” to identify hazards which may result from a chemical release and to take “necessary steps” to prevent such releases. Specifically, the bill would:
- Require EPA to complete a rulemaking process before finding any facility in violation of the General Duty Clause;
- Require definitions of “extremely hazardous substance,” “appropriate hazard assessment techniques,” and “design and maintain a safe facility” in any General Duty Clause regulation;
- Require EPA to issue guidelines to ensure that EPA enforcement procedures are uniform across its Regions;
- Prohibit the EPA from regulating chemical facility security under the General Duty Clause, reinforcing exclusive jurisdiction under the Department of Homeland Security.
Argument in favor
This bill amends vague legislative language while more fully defining the EPA's role in regulating chemical facilities.
Argument opposed
The bill waters down the already weak regulatory protections of hyper-dangerous industrial sites, potentially hurting public safety.
Impact
Facilities that harbor chemicals that may be considered hazardous; local communities near these facilities; the EPA.
Cost of S. 88
A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
Additional Info
In Depth: Rep. James Inhofe (R-OK), a cosponsor of the previous version of this bill, explained in a speech that the bill would prevent the EPA from abusing vague legislation:
“This bill will clarify the authority of the EPA under the provision and provide transparency and uniformity to its enforcement practices to ensure that unwarranted fines and prosecutions are not allowed to continue.”
On the other side of the issue, Tim Murphy at Mother Jones reports that:
“The bill is designed to sap the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to regulate safety and security at major chemical sites, as prescribed by the Clean Air Act.”
...The owners and operators of stationary sources producing, processing, handling or storing such substances [i.e., a chemical in 40 CFR part 68 or any other extremely hazardous substance] have a general duty [in the same manner and to the same extent as the general duty clause in the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)] to identify hazards which may result from (such) releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, and to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur.
Media:
(Photo Credit: By Trevor MacInnis - Trevor MacInnis, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=358103)
The Latest
-
IT: Battles between students and police intensify, and... 💻 Should we regulate AI access to our private data?Welcome to Thursday, May 2nd, listeners... The battle between protesters and police intensifies on college campuses across the read more...
-
Should U.S. Implement Laws Protecting Private Data from AI Access?Artificial intelligence is rapidly integrating into our everyday lives, transforming the way we work, live, and interact with read more... Artificial Intelligence
-
Protests Grow Nationwide as Students Demand Divestment From IsraelUpdated May 1, 2024, 11:00 a.m. EST The battle between protesters and police has intensified on college campuses across the read more... Advocacy
-
IT: Rumors spread about ICC charging Israel with war crimes, and... Should states disqualify Trump?Welcome to Tuesday, April 30th, friends... Rumors spread that the International Criminal Court could issue arrest warrants for read more...