March 02, 2017
WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, senior member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee, today with Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) introduced S. J. Res 28, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) Resolution of Disapproval that blocks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act Rule (RMP rule).
U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin introduced the House companion, H. J. Res. 59 in the house on Feb. 2.
“This CRA resolution blocks an Obama administration midnight regulation that puts our chemical facilities, surrounding communities and our national security at risk, while doing nothing to actually improve safety,” Inhofe said. “By requiring chemical facilities to disclose to the public the types and quantities of chemicals stored there and their security vulnerabilities, the EPA is giving a blueprint to those who would like to do us harm. Department of Homeland Security, OSHA, and existing EPA regulations will remain in place to continue ensuring the safety of these facilities, their workers and their communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue addressing the last 8 years of executive overreach by passing this resolution.”
“The EPA’s Risk Management Program rule was a politically-motivated midnight-regulation by the Obama administration,” said Barrasso. “This resolution will preserve existing safety measures vital to chemical facilities and surrounding communities. It will also ensure that sensitive information remains protected. I would like to thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership on this resolution and encourage my colleagues to support it.”
“The EPA’s Risk Management Program Rule is yet another example of unnecessary regulations that damage small businesses in Kansas and across the country,” Sen. Moran said. “The rule is not only duplicative of existing Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, but also has real national security implications as it would force facilities to disclose storage locations and quantities of hazardous chemicals without adequate safeguards to keep the sensitive information out of the hands of bad actors.”
“This rule is a classic example of regulation that does not solve an underlying problem but instead imposes unnecessary costs and creates unintended consequences, such as increasing security risks at chemical facilities,” Johnson said. “Securing America’s critical infrastructure is a top priority that I have pursued in a bipartisan way as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Repealing this rule strengthens that effort and boosts our national security.”