NJ Work Environment Council Fact Sheet

New Rule for Inherently Safer Technology Review

by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Effective date: May 5, 2008

New Jersey is the only state in the nation with Inherently Safer Technology (IST) requirements. Federal

Department of Homeland Security chemical security rules do not require IST.1 Nor do EPA rules for 

prevention of accidental releases or OSHA’s standard on Process Safety Management. This rule can 

help protect the health and safety of workers and communities by encouraging the reduction of 

hazardous chemicals at facilities.

What does Inherently Safer Technology (IST) mean in the rule?

IST means the principles or techniques that can be incorporated in a “covered process” regulated by the 

Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) to minimize or eliminate potential for a release of an 

“extraordinarily hazardous substance (EHS).” This includes:

· Reducing the amount of EHS material that may be released.

· Substituting less hazardous materials.

· Using EHSs in the least hazardous process conditions or form; and

· Designing equipment and processes to minimize potential for equipment failure and human error.

What facilities are covered by the rule?

Approximately 90 New Jersey facilities regulated by TCPA. These include chemical, plastic, and 

pesticide manufacturing plants, oil refineries, major food processors, water and wastewater treatment, 

and liquefied petroleum gas facilities. See a list of TCPA facilities at the end of this fact sheet.

What does an owner or operator have to do to comply with the rule?

They must complete an IST review report and must submit it to DEP. The report “...shall identify 

available IST alternatives or combinations of alternatives that minimize or eliminate the potential for an 

EHS release.”

What is a “covered process”?

A covered process is any activity involving use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or on site movement 

of an EHS material that meets or exceeds the threshold quantity.2

Who conducts the IST review?

The rule says “...a team of qualified experts, convened by the owner or operator, whose members shall 

have expertise in environmental health and safety, chemistry, design and engineering, process controls 

and instrumentation, maintenance, production and operations, and chemical process safety.” The 

names, qualifications, and experience of team members must be in the report.

Can workers and their union participate in the IST review?

DEP says that the review must include “front line workers and their representatives”. (Source: DEP 

PowerPoint Presentation, June 17, 2008). 

 1 Contra Costa County, California has a limited regulation for IST. 2 As of March 2009, threshold quantities are detailed in TCPA rules.
While there is no specific language about this in the DEP IST rule, Section 68.83 of the federal EPA 

rules for accidental release prevention requires “...consultation with employees and their 

representatives...” and ensures union access to information. These EPA rules are also enforced by 

DEP.

Who selects the employees that participate in the IST review team? 

The employees that participate to the PHA and IST team must have the specific knowledge and 

experience stated in the team requirements. The responsibility to comply with the TCPA and the 

methods chosen to achieve such is that of the owner or operator of the facility.3

Must the owner or operator implement the IST alternatives identified?

No. They must determine whether the IST alternative is feasible. According to the rule, “feasible means 

capable of being accomplished in a successful manner, taking into account environmental, public health 

and safety, legal, technological, and economic factors.”

If they decide not to implement the IST, they must provide a written justification using a qualitative and 

quantitative evaluation of environmental, public health and safety, legal, technological, and economic 

factors. 

If they decide to implement the IST, they must provide a schedule of when they will do it.

How often do they have to conduct an IST review?

The owner or operator must complete and submit to DEP an initial review report within 120 days from 

the rule’s effective date. Chemical plants that already completed IST reports under the state’s Best 

Practices Standards can submit this existing report to comply with the rule.

An update is required every five years for all covered processes and at the same time as the updates of 

applicable hazard reviews or process hazard analysis. An update of the IST review is also required 

when there is a major change.

If the five-year update of the applicable hazard review or process hazard analysis is due within two 

years of the initial IST review, then the IST review does not need to be updated at that time.

Is this information subject to public disclosure?

An owner or operator may file a claim with DEP to withhold from public disclosure confidential 

information included in an IST review report.

How will this rule be enforced?

DEP will review IST reports, inspect facilities and can apply financial penalties for violations.4

How does this rule improve upon current requirements?

TCPA, enacted in 1986 after the disaster in Bhopal, India, authorized DEP to require IST reviews. In 

2003, DEP issued such rules – but they only applied to the few newly designed and constructed 

processes. In 2005, after WEC and our allies defeated a DEP deal which would have let the chemical 

industry regulate itself, NJ issued mandatory Best Practices Standards (BPS) for chemical plants. 

These required 43 TCPA facilities to conduct one-time IST reviews.

 3 Source: NJ DEP website: Inherently Safer Technology, Frequently Asked Questions. 4 Penalty amounts are on pages 178, 180-184, 217, 220-223 of the TCPA Consolidated Rule Document available at 

www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/brp/tcpa/tcpadown.htm.
Four significant improvements of the IST rule over BPS are: 

1) BPS only covered chemical plants. The IST rule also covers other types of facilities.

2) BPS required only a one-time review of IST. The IST rule requires periodic reviews.

3) BPS required the IST review to be conducted by a “qualified expert in chemical process safety”. The 

rule would require a “team of qualified experts” to conduct the review. Moreover, management must 

consult with workers and their unions.

4) BPS did not have a specific mechanism for enforcement. The IST rule includes financial penalties for 

noncompliance.

Where can I get more detailed information?

Go to the DEP website TCPA page at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/brp/tcpa/tcpanews.htm 

There are additional links here to key documents, such as the TCPA law, the IST rule, Frequently Asked 

Questions, etc.

Whom can I contact for further technical questions about the rule?

Iclal Atay or Paul Komosinsky

Bureau of Release Prevention

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

(609) 633-0610

Email: iclal.atay@dep.state.nj.us or paul.komosinsky@dep.state.nj.us

This fact sheet is issued by the New Jersey Work Environment Council, 142 West State Street, Third Floor, Trenton, NJ 

08608. Telephone (609) 695-7100. More information is also available on WEC’s web site at www.njwec.org. 

CWA 38010/AFL-CIO, USW 4-149

Some New Jersey IST Success Stories

Source: DEP, January 15, 2010

Since the implementation of New Jersey’s IST Review rule, 41 of the 85 facilities 

that have conducted reviews have implemented or planned to implement IST 

measures. WEC does not believe that all IST measures identified by facilities should 

be accepted IST measures (ie – labeling of pipes and other equipment).

Substitution of a less hazardous substance

· Wastewater treatment facilities have switched from using chlorine to sodium 

hypochlorite for disinfection of their treated wastewater.

· Electric generation and cogeneration plants substituted anhydrous ammonia with 

aqueous ammonia for use in their air pollution control systems.

Reduction in the amount of a hazardous substance stored on-site

· A facility replaced bulk storage of acetylene with onsite generation for direct 

consumption into the process.

· A facility switched from bulk storage of chlorine to on-site generation of ozone for 

disinfection of potable water.
4

Source: NJDEP, July 2012.

Legal Name Facility City Legal Name Facility City

AEROPRES CORPORATION Hillsborough KUEHNE CHEMICAL CO INC South Kearny

AIR LIQUIDE AMERICA South Plainfield LABREA BAKERY Swedesboro

AL & JOHN GLEN ROCK HAMS West Caldwell LINDE GAS NORTH AMERICA LLC Alpha

AMERICAN SPRAYTECH LLC North Branch LOGAN GENERATING CO LP Swedesboro

AVANTOR PERF.MATERIALS Phillipsburg LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATS. Pedricktown

BASF CORPORATION Washington MCLANE COMPANY INC Carneys Point

BAYONNE PLANT HOLDING Bayonne MURALO COMPANY, INC. Bayonne

BENJAMIN MOORE & CO. Newark NESTLE USA - BEVERAGE Freehold

BRICK TOWNSHIP MUA Brick NEW JERSEY AMERICAN WATER Short Hills

BRIDOR USA INC Vineland NEW JERSEY AMERICAN WATER Somerset

CAPE MAY COUNTY MUA Rio Grande NEW JERSEY AMERICAN WATER Neptune

CARDOLITE CORP Newark NEW JERSEY AMERICAN WATER Colts Neck

CASA DI BERTACCHI CORP Vineland NEW JERSEY AMERICAN WATER Delran

CHAMBERS COGENERATION Carneys Point NEWARK CITY OF NWCDC West Milford

CHURCH & DWIGHT CO INC Lakewood OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES Bordentown

COGEN TECH. LINDEN Linden OXY VINYLS LP Pedricktown

COIM USA INC Paulsboro PASSAIC VALLEY WATER COMM. Totowa

COIM USA INC West Deptford PAULSBORO REFINING CO. Paulsboro

CREST FOAM INDUSTRIES Moonachie PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY Linden

CVC SPECIALTY CHEMICALS Maple Shade POLYONE CORPORATION Pedricktown

DEAN EAST - GARELICK Florence PSEG FOSSIL LLC Jersey City

DELTECH RESIN COMPANY Newark PSEG FOSSIL LLC Hamilton

DIVERSIFIED CPC INT’L INC Sparta PSEG Linden

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Pennsauken READINGTON FARMS INC Whitehouse

DUPONT Linden RECKITT BENCKISER INC Belle Mead

DUPONT Parlin RINCHEM COMPANY INC Raritan Twp

DUPONT Deepwater RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION Somerset

ELAN INCORPORATED Newark SEABROOK BROTHERS & SONS Seabrook

EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP Edison SIEGFRIED (USA) INC Pennsville

EXXONMOBIL EDISON Edison SOLVAY SOLEXIS INC West Deptford

FALCON SAFETY PRODUCTS Branchburg SOUTH JERSEY TERMINAL LLC Bridgeton

FARMLAND DAIRIES LLC Wallington STATE METAL INDUSTRIES INC Camden

FERRO CORPORATION Bridgeport STEPAN CO Fieldsboro

FISHER SCIENTIFIC CO LLC Bridgewater SUNOCO Westville

FXI FOAMEX INNOVATIONS East Rutherford SUNOCO Newark

GRASSO FOODS INC. Woolwich Twp TEKNI-PLEX INC Branchburg

HERCULES INC Parlin TRENTON CITY OF Trenton

HESS CORPORATION Port Reading TROPICANA PRODUCTS INC Jersey City

IMTT BAYONNE Bayonne UNITED WATER NEW JERSEY Haworth

INFINEUM USA LP Linden VEECO INSTRUMENTS INC Somerset

IQE RF LLC Somerset VOLTAIX LLC North Branch

JOHANNA FOODS INC Flemington VWR INTERNATIONAL LLC Bridgeport

JOHNSON MATTHEY INC West Deptford W R GRACE & CO - CONN Edison

JOINT BASE MCGUIRE DIX McGuire AFB WELCO ACETYLENE CORP Newark

KINDER MORGAN Carteret WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS Eatontown