Executive Order 13650 Public Listening Session,

Date: January 14 , 201 4

Location: GSA’s ROB Auditorium , 7 th & D Streets, SW, Washington, DC 20407
Introduction and Opening Remarks

• Jack Eisenhauer , Facilitator , introduced the proceedings :
o Welcomed everyone to the listening session and introduced the panel

o Mentioned future listening sessions and W ebinars

o Written comments can be provided to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov . These comments will be included in the docket

. o Anno uncements:

 Please put phones on vibrate

.

 Session is being recorded for note

- taking purposes

.

 Emergency response information provided.

• Purpose: Provide stakeholders with an overview of the Executive Order 13650: Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (EO) progress to date and provide an opportunity for the public to provide comments, feedback, and suggestions.

• Paul B o mgardner from the Department of Transportation (DOT) was present over the phone in listening mode only.
David Michaels, Assistan t Sec retary Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) , EO tri

- chair, provided introductory remarks and summarized the progress of the EO w orking g roup:

• The p urpose of the session is to solicit comments, best practices, and suggestions fro m stakeholders.

• More than 700 individuals have attended the sessions to date.

• In the wake of the West, Texas disaster, President Obama signed the Chemical Security EO on August 1 , 2013.

o The members of the working group have come together to execute it.

o Eac h a gency has an important role regarding chemical facilities.

o The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for s ecurity

. o OSHA is responsible for worker health and safety , including protecting workers at facilities and during emergency response times.

o The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) is responsible for facility safety and the protection of human health and the environment

. o Together the focus is to modernize the organization mandates and make significant efforts to work cooperatively to support chemical facilities and their workers.

• Each organization has high

- level staff at these meetings and take s them very seriously

. o Four sub

- working groups are established based on sections of the EO :

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 1 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC Section s 3 and 4: Improving Operational and Federal Coordination ( co
- chaired by EPA and DHS / Coast Guard) :

• Developing a plan on how stakeholders can work together througho ut the chemical security sphere

• Exploring h ow to share explosi ves materials storage data and Chemical Facility Anti

- Terrorism Standards ( CFATS ) data

• An important effort to highlight is the p ilot program established in EPA Region II on how to improve coordination in the chemical security sector

. The pilot is looking a t:

o Defining high risk and inspection prioritization among the agencies ;
o How best to share info with responders and across stakeholder groups and F ederal agencies ; and

o Establishing a unified F ederal approach to addressing safety, risk, and security at chem ical facilities.

• Held a listening session on November 19, 2013

 Section 5: Examine ways to improve collection and dissemination of chemical security information ( chaired by DHS / IP) :

• DHS and EPA have exchanged data on helping to evaluate chemical facility compliance with existing requirements

.
• Identifying data collection and sharing needs , including developing a common taxonomy

• Develop ing protocols to facilitate information sharing with F ederal, S tate, local, and tribal entities

• The g oal is to develop a coo rdinated flexible data sharing process that:

o Is m ore readily accessible to the appropriate stakeholders ;
o Propose s a common way to identify chemicals and facilities to properly regulate ; and

o Identifies mechanisms to ensure that information is available to those who need it without compromising the facilities providing the data.

 Section 6: Modernization of standards and regulations ( chaired by OSHA) :

• A d ocument is available online at the working group W ebsite that provides preliminary options and acts as a starting point for additional stakeholder discussion

.
• Please provide comments during the listening session and submit written comments to the mailbox and the docket

.
• Also tasked to improve the storage, handling, and sale of ammonium nitrate (AN)

• C reated an advisory on how to safely handle and store ammonium nitrate EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 2 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC• On December 3, 2013, OSHA released a request for information ( RFI ) to modernize Process Safety Management (PSM) standards to meet the goal of protecting workers by preventing major chemi cal accidents.

o Comments may be submitted at R egulations.gov , which can be accessed from the OSHA homepage.

 Section 7: Establishing best practices and implementation of the E xecutive order ( chaired by DHS / IP) :

• This group is responsible for holding the liste ning sessions.

• The m ain goal is to engage stakeholders to identify, develop, and establish best practices.

• All comments can be provided to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

. o Ninety

- day deliverables were delayed due to the G overnment shutdown.

o The milestones are not considered end dates. Each document is considered a living document that will be continually updated.

o Some 90

- day deliverables will not be available for public review due to being internal deliverables.

o A 90

- day progress report was recently distributed at the E xecutive order W ebsite.

Mathy Stanislaus , Assistant Administrator , Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA , EO Tri

Chair:

• Stressed that the comments at these sessions are critical for making a strong recomme ndation to the President in May

• Has observed that there is a strong shared interest to improve all a reas being considered by the EO

• The working group is specifically interested in hearing comments on the follow areas in S ection 6a:

o L ist of regulated substances in the Risk Management Plan ( RMP ) and Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act ( EP C RA ) program to include , but not be limited to, coverage of reactive substances

o Expand ing inspector training to include best practices in chemical safety beyond regulatory requirements

o EPA tools software for first responders , including Computer

- Aided Management of Emergency Operations ( CAMEO )

o Evaluating opportunities to increase worker involvement and labor manag ement cooper ation in hazards investigations

• The document highlighted that the working group will receive comments during the second 90

- day period in response to the draft policy document. This is the current phase.

• The final 90

- day stage is to develop a pl an of implementation and to report to the President by the end of May.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 3 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCScott Breor , DHS , Office of Infrastructure Protection :

• Standing in for Assistant Secretary Durkovich due to other scheduled events

• Limited vision creates bad decisions. With respect to chemical safety and security, decision making affects the entire community of stakeholders.

• We all have a stake, and the G overnment truly needs public feedback to develop a better report and better standard operating procedures to carry out improved chemi cal safety and security.

• The 90

- d ay f act s heet is a good synopsis of what has been done to date.

• Please go to the OSHA W ebsite and review the information.

• R epresents the regulatory piece of DHS. There is a voluntary piece located in DHS as well.

• Invites stakeholders to review the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) 2013 located on the DHS W ebsite. This document speaks to the framework of how the G overnment will work with the private security to achieve security and resiliency goals.

Com mander Jeff Morgan , DHS / US Coast Guard :

• Coast Guard wants to evaluate the comments and statements from the public and look s forward to them.

Deb S t atkowiak , Department of Justice, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ( ATF ):

• ATF looks forward to worki ng with its F ederal partners here

.
• We are l ooking for best practices in the already submitted comments with the goal of establishing best practices.

• ATF r egulates explosives manufacturers. Many of them use precursor chemicals in their production, so ATF ne eds to coordinate with the rest of the G overnment to understand how these precursors are regulated.

• The Criminal Investigation Arm wants to help this EO w orking g roup better respond to chemical safety events and provide help to responders as necessary.

K aris Gutter , U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) :

• Thanked the stakeholders for their comments

• Looking forward to incorporating comments in collaboration with other F ederal partners
Lisa Long, Director of Engineering Safety, OSHA :

• Section 6a called for the working group to develop a list of options related to policy regulations and standards modernization in the first 90 days. During t he s econd 90 days , we are scheduled to receive stakeholder feedback based on the options submitted

. The t hird 90 days is scheduled for the working group to write a report and a plan forward that provides recommendations based on feedback.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 4 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC• P rovided a brief summary of the options document, Executive Order 13650, Section 6.a

– Solicitation of Public Input on Options for Policy Regulation and Standards Modernization: https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/Section_6ai_Options_List.html

. Jack Eisenhauer discussed the listening session format for the rest of the day :

• The g oal is to hear a diverse set of opinions and a range of suggestions. Consensus is not expected or desired at this session

.
• In the event that someone cannot speak or wants to provide additional comment s , please use the e mail address at eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

.
• The d ay broken into a morning and afternoon session

.
• At the beginning of each session , the presenters will be brought to the front

.
• Each speaker will state name, organiza tion, and stakeholder group

.
• Each speaker limited to 5 minutes.

• After each presentation, the panel may ask clarifying questions

.
• Open comment periods will be provided at the end of the morning and afternoon sessions if there is time available.
Speakers:
Cy nthia Hilton, I nstitute of M akers of E xplosives (IME) , remarked:

• Ple ased with the progress of the Executive o rder to date

• She will need time to digest the 6a options paper before offering comments on it.

• IME has provided a detailed list of comments and rec ommendations but do es not have a sense where the EO is going with the recommendations

.
• Request ed that the G overnment release the Section 4a matrix of programs that addresses the needs of commun ity safety and security efforts

• IME p rovided input but do es not have any way of assessing if that information and recommendations were recorded.

• Do not know how to respond to recommendations that are not implemented in policy papers

• Anxious to see the list provided under the Section 6b options

• Comment from Mr. St anislaus: A large number of options are captured in the 6a policy document, and the process of the EO does not replace the rulemaking process

. There is additional work and opportunit ies for comments from stakeholders through the phases of the EO, the optio ns process, and the rulemaking process. If there are particular documents that should be released, please mention specifics , and the G overnment is more than happy to review and comply where appropriate

. o Ms. Hilton t hank ed ATF for providing information in t he progress report that discussed their plans for information sharing with S tates and localities.

o Also acknowledged DHS for put ting something in writing and pushing it to stakeholders

. She requested the same of all agencies involved with the EO.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 5 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCJennifer Gibson, N ational A ssociation of C hemical D istributors (NACD) , provided the following comments:

• NA CD members (400+ companies) demonstrate continuous performance improvement

.
• Under R esponsible D istribution ® , NACD member safety ratings are consistently better than non

members ’

.
• Numerous regulations focus on safe facility operations, and it is a challenge for facilities to stay on top of these regulations. This includes OSHA’s PSM ; EPA’s RMP ; DHS’s CFATS ; and DOT’s HAZMAT Regulations.

• For the system to work bes t, regulations must be clear and consistent , and there should be a focus on outreach and compliance assistance.

• A lack of awareness creates issues and tragedies. There needs to be a dedicated effort to make sure that all facilities are aware of the regula tions and their interpretations.

• Inherently s afer t echnology ( IST ) regulation s will only cause more confusion at this point. Doing this now would be counterproductive.

• NACD has serious concerns about the potential mandate for the use of IST, especially if those mandates are not clearly defined, may not be achievable, and/or could transfer risk elsewhere along the supply chain.

• Regulations and enforcement must be consistent

. Often, regulatory compliance is subject to the judgment of an individ ual inspector.

• While NACD understands the need for sharing information among G overnment a gencies, we are concerned about the prospect of having one agency acting as a proxy for another

. This could lead to additional inconsistency in interpreting regulatio ns.

• The Government should lead the e ffort to reach outlier facilities

. o Leveraging industry programs will help address this problem.

• The January 3 , 2014 options paper will be reviewed , and comments will be provided , along with comments about the OSHA RFI

.
• Question from Mr. Stanislaus: I n regards to the outlier problem, what do you mean by

“ regulatory recognition ” ?

o Ms. Gibson ’s response: T he trade associations can be leveraged to focus on members while the G overnment attempts to locate and reign in outliers

.
• Dr . Michaels had a question about the third party audit system under NACD :
o Ms. Gibson’s response: Under Responsible Distribution®, each member has to write and implement policies and procedures to satisfy the 13 codes required by NACD in their membershi p guidelines. The verification process entails a visit to the facility, meetings with management, and a validation of procedures through inspections and interviews.

 It is a very robust program.

 NACD works to have members succeed, but t here have been instan ces where members are asked to leave because they did not meet the requirements of the program

. Janette Harlow, Maryland Chemical Company (MCC) , commented: EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 6 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC• MCC is a regulated company and member of NACD complying with the NACD standards.

• Highlight two critical areas to prevent chemical disaster :
o Working together works, and Local Emergency Plannin g Committees ( LEPCs ) are essential :

 There are no risk

- free environments. Instead, h ow can we manage risk?

 Use what is already in place to promote and ensure che mical safety and security.

 Deal with an accident ahead of time by focusing on prevention and emergency preparedness.

 This is what LEPCs were created to do.

 No one agency or company can handle a large chemical accident or emergency.

 Frequent meetings ; sharing resources ; coordinated planning, training, and drilling ; improving plans ; and repeating the process are all necessary to prepare.

 Improving coordination would result in not only improved preparedness, but also in identifying outlier facilities.

o Em ergency planners need regulatory clarity and certainty.

 Chemical distribution companies are subject to a wide array of regulations across multiple sectors.

o Question from Mr. Stanislaus : W hat are your thoughts on LEPCs and the capacity to do hazard analysi s?

 Ms. Harlow responded : I n Baltimore, the LEPC did not do the hazard analysis themselves

. With the emergency responders’ expertise, risk analysis was distribu ted among multiple stakeholders , including regulatory resources, first responders, process engine ers from larger facilities, and scientists and chemists.

 Pooling resources across multiple stakeholders has proven to be successful.

o Question from Mr. Stanislaus : H ow has the Baltimore LEPC been successful in getting facility owners to participate where o thers across the country have had trouble?

 Ms. Harlow responded : S uccess tends to hinge on having facilities be members of trade associations and having them coordinate and communicate with each other.

 Trade associations should be leveraged to accomplish facility participation with LEPCs.

o Question from Dr . Michaels : W hy is the Baltimore situation unique?

 Ms. Harlow responded : T here are two other areas that do it well : K anawha Valley , West Virginia and the Houston shipping channel . What worked 30 years

a go was a concentration of chemical producers and public servants engaging with sectors. In the case of Baltimore, it was the mayor , the f ire c hief, and the petroleum transfer companies working together to get an organization off the ground.

o Question from M r. Stanislaus: W ould you recommend that we issue recommendations for using your mutual aid model to be replicated around the country?
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 7 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC Ms. Harlow responded : Y es, and I would offer to meet with you at any time

. I can also bring the mutual aid experts from my community to participate.
Douglas Brown, Brown Chemical , remarked:

• Brown Chemical is a small company and active member of NACD.

• NACD is an information resource.

• The c urrent national regulatory system is robust.

• Thinks that West, Texas was a communication and compliance issue , not a regulation issue

• In terms of modernizing the chemical distribution and regulatory system, recommends review ing the current system for clarity in the current regulations before adding new ones

• Also make sure that compliance assistance is a major piece of the regulation system.

• Helpful guidance documents are key in making regulations clear. It:

o Facilitates implementation ;
o Promotes effective employee training ; and

o Leads to ultimately safer facilities.

• Achieving a risk

- free environment , from a practical point of view, is difficult , if not impossible.

o Risk reduction is possible and can be achieved in a variety of ways

.
• Caution in that a major shift of regulation could cause less safety and security due to organizational change

• Encourages the working group to embrace outreach before establishing major regulatory changes

• NACD developed a checklist that assists in regulatory clarity.

• Encourages agencies to reduce complexity in regulations and to reach out to industry, trade groups , and LEPCs to assist in this reduction.

• Question from Dr . Michaels : We often hear from stakeholders that they want us to be very clear, but without telling them us what to do

. H ow would the facilities feel if a regulatory agency were to enforce the 13 cod es of management practice produced by NACD?

o Mr. Brown did not have a full answer but rhetorically asked how the firms that are off the radar screen can be reach ed. He followed by stating that NACD can be very effective in helping firms understand their res ponsibilities, but it is more difficult to compel people to participate. Guidance to find that help is essential.
Jose Aguaro , Science Fellow, Center for Health Environment and Justice , commented:

• His a rea of expertise is community health and engagement

.
• Described a number of past chemical disasters over the past 15 years

• All tragedies share something in common:

o Better chemicals could be used ; and

o First responders could have been better trained

.
• F ederal regulations currently in place are inadequate , and w e have a chance to make them right.

• Progressive concepts must be a final requirement in implementation

. EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 8 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCo Quality of the regulations is important , and we cannot afford to set in place mild policies that put people at risk.

 Must ensure that a risk is eliminat ed or reduced to its lowest possible level.

• There will be major opposition from industry because it forces them to change their operations and rethink their strategies. They will say that added safety measures would be redundant and regulations are burdens ome. He urged everyone to think that lives are more important than the initial financial investment.

• The President ordered an improvement in the safety of chemical facilities, not because of what it would do for our industry, but rather because it is in the best interest to our citizens

.
• Question from Dr . Michaels : T he previous speaker stated that we need to reach the outlier s

. H ow should we reach those facilities?

o Mr. Aguaro responded: T he EO set a tone throughout the N ation , and I don’t think that there will be outliers based on what has happened

.

 There needs to be a place where companies can approach G overnment and be engaged with the regulatory community. The I nternet is the best option for distributing this information.

 Mr. Aguaro a gre es with others , stating that regulatory requirements need to be precise and to the point.

• Comment from Mr. Breor: 6A lays out regulatory areas where the G overnment is requesting feedback. Even if stakeholders, like Mr. Aguaro , are not policy experts, they can still provide feedback based on their areas of expertise.
Meeting took a 10

- minute break
Peter Lodel, A merican C hemistry C ouncil (ACC) , Chair of Process Safety Committee , commented:

• Regarding r eactivity management hazards :
o RFI asked about reactive haza rds.

o OSHA has been down this path before. One statement by the Chemical Safety Board concluded that risk

- based regulations are not effective for reactive hazards.

o The ACC s uggest s a hierarchy of chemicals:

 First level: s elf

- reactives ;

 Second level: chemica ls that react with ubiquitous substances , such as air and water ;

 Third level: everything else

o If the re is evidence that the first two could be handled with a list rule, then it should; however , ACC recommends that the third level be managed by a wide array of pre
- existing G overnment and industry tools that are not necessarily regulated. This includes:

 Center for Chemical Process Safety ( CCPS ) guideline s in “ Essential Practices for Managing Chemical Reactivity Hazards ,” and

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 9 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) publication of the chemical reactivity worksheet. This is the centerpiece for the Center of Chemical Process Safety’s reactive evaluation screening tool.

 These tools provide a much more effective way of handling reactive h azards , as opposed to a list

- based rule.

• Meaning and use of the term R A GAGEP (Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices) :
o Refers to m ultiple m ethodologies and f irst

- p rinciple a pproaches to ensure that risk is mitigated to an appropriate level

. o Good engineering practices go far beyond the application of consensus standards

. A lthough the efforts of industry organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute ( API ) , the National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA ) , and the Compressed Gas A ssociation contribute significantly , n o organization can replace a company’s specific engineering and process situation s

.

 The concept of RAGAGEP should be extended to recognize that there is more than one way to address safety and security issues, and analysis and evaluation goes far behind the application of rote consensus standards.

• Regarding IST and inherently safer alternatives :
o ACC is concerned about the misplaced emphasis on IST , which may distract the working group and their report from othe r important topics.

o There are numerous existing programs which require operators to take a hard look at their operation to make it safe and secure. The goal of maintaining a safe and secure facility is implicit in analyzing IST.

o Explicit IST mandates are n ot needed.

o The r ole of G overnment needs to be coordinated with industry , which has the knowledge and technical expertise for properly securing their facilities.

• Question from Mr. Stanislaus: Is it possible for small facilities to take a hard look at the CC P S recommendation as well as ACC guidelines? What role can G overnment play in reaching outliers?

o Mr. Lodel responded : Two things will assist smaller facilities : one, making the 2003 published central practices book freely available. Many Federal agencies s ubsidized its cost at that time to make that book a free download for 3 years

. Two, the NOAA tool is freely available to those that may need it. People need to be made aware that it is available and usable for no cost.

• Follow

- up from Mr. Stanislaus: Can th ird

- party entity structure s be expanded to encompass CCPS guidelines for ge t t ing to smaller facilities?

o Mr. Lodel re sponded: If it is possible in the F ederal regulation, member companies are willing to coordinate third parties with facilities and G overnmen t to build a proper oversight/regulatory product.

• Question from Dr . Michaels: Is there a gap in OSHA standards around reactives?

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 10 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCo Mr. Lodel responded: There is not a gap, but the extrinsic factors that are not inherent are the nominating factor. Site and application

- specific factors are difficult to regulate, and better guidance on how to manage such extrinsic reactives is important.
Matthew Marshall, E

- plan user group representative, Chairman of the Florida Association of HAZMAT Responders , remarked:

• Who is going to protect the locals in the event of a major incident ? It is going to be the first responders.

• Fire marshal s should be able to identify and communicate outliers.

• Compliance by industry:

o There are 50 different ways of importing information into E

- plan , EPCRA, RMP, DHS, OSHA, and many others

. o His solution is to create o ne online database entry point to ensure the information’s accuracy. Database d evelopment should be done with the help of industry and first responders

. o It should be easy to export in to other systems , such as CAMEO , Tier 2 Submit, Excel, PDF, KML, and GIS Systems.

o Government should develop a standard entry point for regulat ed information.

• Information for emergency responders:

o A group should meet with each S tate agency collecting that d ata.

o Local responders should be engaged , and the access points and data availability should be communicated to them at that point. This should done at their sites as well as at conferences across the country.

 Social m edia can also be used to drive the mess age.
o Create a training schedule to hit all 50 S tates , starting with regional assets.

 Face

- to

- face training is the best way to educate about an information database system.

• Start with regional assets in distributing information and training.

 This database i nformation and data entry training should be added to f ederally funded training curricula

.

 Create an online refresher training and make it available. CAMEO is a great program, but if you do not use it within a year , it is easily forgotten.

o Create an open dialogue with local, S tate, and F ederal responders , as well as with industry representatives :

 EPA created E

- plan , and DHS funded it

.

 It currently has 8000 users in 49 S tates and has 55,000 industrial representatives who input their data into the W eb

- based database

.

 In addition to RMP and EPRA information, i t needs to have other regulatory agencies ’ information

.

 Conferences provide training , and those conferences have excellent attendance.

 This can be done under $1.5 million. EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 11 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCo As of right now, EPA has fine d an average of $130 million per year for the last 5 years, and only $44 million has come back for supplemental environmental projects. This should be one of those projects.

• Question from Mr. Breor : W hen talking about standard data point, do yo u mean a standard framework or more global central data repository ?

o Mr. Marshall’s response: B oth

. If this is streamlined into a one

- stop sho p , it will be easier for industry to report the necessary data.

 Having a database input point at one location will mean that only one tool need s to be communicated to users. This will also help streamline training.

• Question from Mr. Stanislaus: How can training be improved?

o Mr. Marshall responded: Louisiana State University is currently responsible for CAMEO training , and they run out of funds by the third quarter of every year.

o If somethi ng gets standardized, there will need to be a ramp

- up to appropriately distribute training.

o E

- plan chemical data i s presented in an effective way and should be the focus of the central access point for the EO.

• Question from Mr. Stanislaus: Should it be a one

- time or regular implementation of funding through Supplemental Environmental Projects ?

o Mr. Marshall responded: It shoul d be a regular implementation to ensure consistent fund ing. The unfunded mandate of LEPCs is a major issue here.

o In Florida, they are lucky. They have funded LEPCs. Eleven have full

- time staff people who can find information through their searches because they have the time.

• Ques tion from Ms. Satkowiak : Does E

- plan have any security considerations for those who are able to access the data?

o Mr. Marshall responded: E

- plan is a full y secure site that is governed by S tate and/or local jurisdiction , and this is appropriate. It requires a user and login to access the data, and that login information can only be provided to the appropriate personnel who have been vetted through a process handled by an authorizer role. It is not an open forum.

o E

- plan was developed and establish ed by DHS at University of Texas

- Dallas
Sophia Plagakis , Policy Analyst, Center of Effective Government , commented:

• Focus ed on three issues:

• Coverage of additional chemicals and harmonization of regulatory programs :
o One option i s to regularly review and select new chemical s through a scheduled rulemaking review process.

 Recommend setting a requirement that programs update their required programs on a short schedule ( 2 years , for example)

o Another more expansive option is to use EP CRA’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 hazardous inventory reporting approach as a model.

 For hazardous materials, facilities will need to keep material safety data sheets on file for those specific chemicals above set thresholds: EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 12 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC• 500 pounds for extremely hazardous substances

• 10,000 pounds for other generally hazardous chemicals

o Using a similar approach to EPCRA’s hazardous inventory reporting will harmonize EPCRA with the Risk Management Program to en sure that the broadest lists of chemicals of concern, types of hazards, and facilities are cove red in a consistent manner.

• Implementing Federal r equirements for i nherently s afer t echnologies :
o Five p rinciples to g uide the implementation of an IST standard for chemical facilities:

 Transparent and c omprehensive in s cope

 Clear deadlines in reporting req uirements

 Sufficient violations and penalties for facilities that do not meet requirements

 Public m easurements for determining the program’s success

 Process for front

- line workers, their representatives, and their communities to participate and provide in put

o Many programs can be use d as an example :

 EPA’s Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (MACT Standards) : This general approach may be adapted to address chemical plant safety standards.

 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards : Regulator s could establish a model that establishes a chemical safety score for facilities based on a variety of measurements, and this could be used as a standard to help facilities improve without prescribing specific change.

• Proposed policy options fail to inclu de communities located around chemical facilities

. o Most of these communities have a unique understanding and access to a great deal of information about the chemical facilities in their communities; however, they have minimal outlets to provide that inform ation.

o More consideration needs to be given for how facilities affect these communities , how communities can provide information about facilities , and how communities can assist with the community

- facility relationship.

Dr. Darius Sivin , United Auto Workers , remarked:

• In regards to worker participation and protection against retaliation :
o Thank ed EPA and OSHA for attempting to implement the intent of their existing regulations

o Encourage d DHS to improve worker participation in CFATS and to look at the Chemical Facility Anti

- terrorism Act as a model . This passed the H ouse in 2009 and included a number of provisions for worker participation.

o Whistleblower regulations do not function as well as they should.

o Agencies should write into their standards that p olicies and practices that discourage the reporting of hazards, injuries, and/or that promote retaliation against folks who do report such hazards/injuries are violations against the chemical safety standards and are citable and could incur penalties.

• Rega rding RMP and PSM harmonization , I have visit ed reading rooms and have seen in some RMP reports that a release could affect zero pe ople because only offsite consequences are considered. EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 13 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCo Encourage s EPA and OSHA to account for both onsite and offsite people when a release

occurs

• In regards to i nherently s afer t echnologies:

o The EO directive describes how the existing standards are not adequate.

 As Charles Perrow writes in Normal Accidents : “If you have complex systems, failure is sometimes inevitable. The only thing we can do about that is to reduce or eliminate the hazardous materials we are using.”

o M any alternatives exist that will reduce or eliminate risks , and these should be better promoted , including the insurance requirement when threshold policies are e xceeded.

o Promoting safer technologies through trade associations is not the way to go because the se programs do not reach outliers. In addition, there are still many releases that occur among members of the se associations.

o One definition that could be adopt ed is from a National Research Council publication entitled The Use and Storage of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) at Bayer CropScience. The inherent approach to hazard control is to m inimize or eliminate the hazard

— for example , by replacing a flammable solve nt with water to eliminate a fire hazard

— rather than just accepting the hazard as a fait accompli

.

 In terms of using c ost benefit analysis:

• Cites Prof essor Sundstein , who doubts its effectiveness in the case s of low probability/high consequence events

• Que stion from Dr . Michaels: What sort of practices are discouraged when whistleblowers report hazards and hazardous events , and how can these be addressed using regulation?

o Dr. Sivin responded: Interviews of the workers on the Deepwater Horizon suggested that there was an atmosphere of intimidation in that people did not feel free to come forward and report potential problems.

• It is hard to address . Perhaps the agency can cite a consistent finding that supervisors have threatened o r retaliated against workers who have reported hazards

.
• Question from Dr . Michael s : A ll whistleblower regulations are based on action s taken against individual s

. B eyond that , what would you like to see in citations, penalties, etc

. ?

o Respons e from Dr . Sivin : T he G overnment should move to citing situation s where there are pervasive practice s of disciplining folks who report accidents outside of the ir facilities . It should be written into the regulation standard.

• Question from Mr. Stanislaus: Are you suggesting that the G overnment be more specific about employees’ hazards reporting?

o Dr. Sivin’s response: In the 2009 Chemical F acility A nti

- terrorism A ct, there are provisions for worker participation in safety planning. It is not just about reporting hazards ; it is also about including emp loyees and their representatives in planning to make the facility safer.

• Follow up from Mr. Stanislaus: What role should the F ederal G overnment play in utilization insurance?

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 14 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCo Dr. Sivin’s response: The Government should function as one of many tools when there is a known hazard associated with a specific substance and a known substitute ( e.g., a mmonium

n itrate and u rea , respectively ). AN is less expensive to use than urea, but it causes a higher potential social cost in a catastrophe. By using social cost (insurance requirements being the example here), the Government can make usi ng the more hazardous chemical more expensive , thereby level ing the playing field and push ing facilities toward safer technolog ies

. Morning Open Session
Cynthia Hilton, IME , comme nted:

• Wants to clarify some facts regarding the 6a options paper :
o Explosives make the rest of the economy productive. Many other industries rely on explosives materials that IME members make

. o IME c ompanies produce:

 98% of nations high explosive

 The m ajority of blasting agents and oxidizers

 65% world’s supply of oil perforators

 Upwards of 75% of AN consumed in the United States

• Based on this perspective, she asked who wrote the 6a options paper questions

. o Under the AN section, it asks about lowering sc reening thresholds

. o At the November 14 listening session, IME stated that the AN used in the explosives industry is the same chemical combination of AN that the agricultural industry uses

.

 They are both 5.1 oxidizers. The only difference is the density. In a fire you cannot tell the difference.

 There is no commercial form of AN that is classified as an explosive.

o There are no D ivision 1.1 explosive AN products.

 Exactly what does the working group mean when they use the term “ explosive AN products ” ?

• In the 6 a paper, the w orking group asks about safer alternatives regarding AN

. o AN is the safer alternative for the explosives industry beyond nitroglycerin and other such products.

o IME exists to develop safety and security standards for the industry.

 This is estab lished through IME’s safety library publications or standard operating procedures

.

 The International Association of Fire Chiefs has endorsed t hese AN practices

. o A sked why IME standards and best practices could not be adopted for chemical trade groups
o IME wants the G overnment to adopt its standards. Everyone should follow safety standards across the chemical industry.

• Que stion from Dr. Michaels: P lease elaborate on why you think that 1910. 109 (OSHA’s explosives and blasting agents regulation) is great

. EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 15 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCo IME does not know of any accidental detonation of AN by anyone who has been compliant with the PSM standard.

o IME has recommended a few enhancements to the standard recently and hope they will be considered.

o Seven or so years ago, IME petitioned a full upda te to the standard, and they hope that this update will still be completed.

o It is a “wonderful” standard, but IME still thinks it needs updating.

• Ms. Hilton continued because there were no other speakers. She discussed additional pieces in the Section 6 gu idance paper:

o U nder the explosives section , ATF asks if collaboration is needed:

 IME welcomes all opportunities to collaborate with ATF.

 They did collaborate on IME SOP 28: Recommendations for Accountability and Security of Bulk Explosives and Bulk Securit y Sensitive Materials

.

 They are confused why that question about lowering AN screening thresholds was asked in the paper in light of IME SOP 28.

Afternoon Scheduled Session

• Jack Eisenhauer opened the afternoon session :
o Some panel members had to leave for t he afternoon

. o I ntroduced the Agency representatives for the afternoon :

 David Michaels returned for OSHA

 Barry Breen replaced Mr. Stanislaus for EPA

 Dave Wulf replaced Mr. Breor for DHS / IP

 Commander Jeff Morgan returned for the USCG

 Deb Satkowiak returned for ATF

o Re

- established the ground rules. There were no changes from the morning session.
Speakers
Kent Anderson, Chairman of the Board for the Ammonia Safety and Training Institute (ASTI) , remarked:

• Partnerships in dealing with these chemical safety and security issues are absolutely critical. It is very difficult to do, however

.
• Putting together coalitions of organizations that have different agendas takes a lot of time, but when it works , it works very well.

• ASTI focus es specifically on ammonia because the number one chemical in the RMP universe is ammonia. Chlorine is the second

. o 9000 of the 12,000 facilities are ammonia

- related.

• Ammonia is the number one hazardo us chemical reported to the National Response Center ( NRC )

. They have a lot of releases.

• ASTI’s mission is to make ammonia the safest risk

- managed hazardous material in the world. However, it is a lifetime job that will never be completed. EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 16 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC• The g oal is to improve the relationship between first responders and other stakeholders.

o Do this with lessons learned safety day s that include F ederal G overnment representatives and the local fire services

o Mines RMP database consistently for accidents

o Through equipment failure and human error, valves and pipes are the typical causes of and

reaso ns for ammonia accidents.

• Restarting the security and safety framework would take too long. We need to focus on what we have and improve it through coordination and communication.

• We have been arguing IST for decades. If decisions at the White House are ba sed on political or policy decisions from the EO report, then we are going down the wrong road.

• The Government needs to go back around the tree and re

- evaluate many things they already do.

• Focus on intra

- age ncy and interagency fixes first.

• Small facilities are having a difficult time keeping up with the regulations. They do not read the Federal Register , and the regulations are long and complex.

o The Government needs to make the regulations simpler and more straightforward if possible.

• Comment from Dr. Micha els : I request that you play an active role in the PSM RFI effort by providing ways that facilities can com ply with the regulatory efforts and how the G overnment can close gaps.

o The r efrigeration industry relying on the a mmonia industry got caught flat

- footed on PSM regulations.

o ASTI put together guidance, and eventually F ederal inspectors starting using it. This is now considered a best practice.

o Also states that most basic regulations OSHA have for a mmonia are outdated . The standards are based on the 1 970s version , and ANSI has been revised five times since then.

 The Government needs to determine how to keep their standards more up

- to

- date.
Charlotte Brody, Vice President for Health Initiatives for the Blue Green Alliance , remarked:

• Called attention to the California i nteragency working group on refinery safety. It is developing a program that can provide examples of similar options.

o They, along with many others, are participants in the process.

o Some of the options they are looking into include :

 Requiring inherently safer systems to the greatest extent feasible

 Developing new funding mechanisms that are chemical facility fee

- based

 Enhancing enforcement capacity to include more inspectors who are better trained and better paid

 Periodically performi ng safety culture assessments

 Requiring the incorporation of damage mechanism hazard reviews into Process Hazard Assessments

 Completing root cause analyses after significant accidents or releases , including explicit accounting of human factors

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 17 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC I mprove public input during emergency planning and enhance information alerts and outreach during emergencies

 Creating a task force that can really explore the safety case approach

• Believes t hat the fundamentals that undergird the safety case are the same pillars that would hold up any truly effective safety management system

• Call ed attention to Federal Aviation Administration’s ( FAA ) A viation Safety Action Program (ASAP):

o ASAP protects worker confidentially and prohibits retaliation against workers reporting safet y violations

. o Creates tripartite consensus system of decision making between worker representatives, management, and the G overnment for how to handle safety violation reports

o There is strong reputational and financial motivation for airline companies to pa rticipate.

• Need to change the rules and economics enough to make chemical facilities understand that it is in their self

- interest to have a better safety standard

o OSHA’s illness and i njury prevention program s could be revamped under a similar structure

.
• To implement safer alternatives us ing OSHA’s own online toolkit to move towar d safer alternatives and emphasize training , workers and employees should use these methods, including C hem HAT.

• Question from Dr . Michaels: What is your evaluation of the Contra Cos ta experience?

o Ms. Brody’s response: It is a partial success. Where it has not succeeded shows us which safety cases need to be adapted to U

. S

. realties to make it work. The safety case in Newark hinges on safety personnel having the knowledge and the proper pay so that they do not jump jobs for better opportunities . Workers do not have needed confidentiality protection and absolute protection fr om retaliation , as exemplified in the safety case that works best

. The people who manage those facilities do not have the same financial or carrier

- building motivation to do what is being done in other countries.
Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace , remarked:

• Centered his comments on the five criteria identified in the policy options paper

• The Center for American Progress has produced a battery of report s on which facilities have successfully moved t o inherently safer technologies and have thereby r educed the potential for catastrophic risk.

o Looking at RMP data, there has been a steady increase of facilities in the RMP program. Since 2009, there has been an increase of about 300 facilities , especially in the risk zone range of 10,000 to 99,000 people

. o 473 facilities each put 100,000 people at risk overall.

o Without duplicating these vulnerability zones, 110 million people are at risk.

o Clorox is a good example of one of the companies that stepped up and converted its facilities. It was good for their bu siness. There are economic reasons for doing the right thing.

 It supplied them with a much lower liability.

 Risk Management Solutions estimated that a chlorine disaster would cause a $7 billion liability. Switching to high strength bleach removes this risk. EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 18 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC• IST is not a sacred term. The important thing is that consequences can be reduced or eliminated by moving to inherently safer techn ologies. You cannot prevent a facility from being attacked or completely from having an accident, but you can mitigate the consequences.

• In the options paper, the G overnment asked about unintended consequences

. o In the ideal world that’s a great idea; howev er , we cannot rely on trade and industry groups to implement inherently safer technologies. They have lobbied against many of the measures that require implementation for decades.

 R equirements are needed to force the acceptance of safer alternatives. However, even in the case of New Jersey , where less stringent requirements are established, the highest risk facilities have still not converted.

• Called for strengthening of the Clean Air Act General Duty C lause

o EPA can do more with Section 112 ( r ) 7A

.
• We ca n use the Risk Management Program to make a finding for OSHA to assign these facilities a recognized hazard.

• Questi on from Dr . Michaels : The previous speaker referenced previous IST implementation. Do you have experience with IST implementation in other co untries?

o Mr. Hind’s response: Ms. Brody’s suggestion for doing an analysis on appropriate international implementation of IST would be a good step.

o Establishing a hierarchy of ever

- increasing safety is important.

o For some facilities, reduction of risk may be all that is viable under certain conditions.

o Greenpeace supports a concept of “those elements that are feasible.”

o Holland has ended all transport of chlorine.

o The French also took action after the Toulouse disaster.

o In the Greenpea c e December written comments, we included language o n methods to reduce consequences , drawing from a section of HR 286 8 , a definition of the National Contingency Plan , and a Congressional Research Service analysis.

o Also submitted EPA’s 2002 proposal that the Whit e House kille d

o Also submitted a detailed APA petition that was submitted to EPA in July of 2012 that explains the opportunities in the Clean Air Act to make these opportunities a reality.

• Question from Mr. Breen: W hat year did the Con gressional Research Service pro duc e their reports?

o Mr. Hind’s response: It was not a CRS report. They were analyses for members of Congress in 2009, 2011, and 2012

. T he reports were produced for Senate and House consumption and were not publicly produced reports.

o They broke down the RMP universe to ranges of people at risk.

o Sen ator Lautenburg’s office requested the 2012 report

. John Gustafson, LEPC Montgomery Co unty , Maryland , commented:

• Thanked the panel for what he called one of the best series of citizen involvement listening sessions he has seen

• Spoke on the i mportance of interagency coordination :
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 19 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCo Based on 40 CFR Part 3 00 of the National Contingency Plan, all of the EO F ederal agencies are involved in it . He said that we all come from large agencies, but the responsibility to create safety and security falls across all of us in many different ways.

o People should seek out the other sides of their own organizations for a greater understand ing beyond what they just do.

o National Response Team has six committees ranging across many concept s, but there is nothing in the Plan that deals specifically with prevention. This falls on the F ederal agencies.

o At one point, there was a discussion to bring together a committee that would coordinate inspectors, getting to know each other’s requirements, etc.

• The overall system needs revitalization.

o He presented and submitted diagrams to the working group describing the roles and responsibilities of many of the stakeholders involved in chemical safety and security.

o The system is robust, but it needs some help. Th is w orking g roup is in an excellent place to do so.

• Dr . Michaels thanked Mr. Gustafson for his prior work and for calling the attention to the work that the G overnment already does.
David Halper in , a ttorney and consultant to Greenpeace , commented:

• Is p art of the C oalition to P revent C hemical D isasters

• For years t he Coalition has urged the G overnment to take action and force movement to inherently safer technologies , materials, and processes

.
• Terrorists add another level of urgency for making facilit ies comply with movement to safer technologies so that attacks can be limited in their disaster potential.

o In 2003, a chemical panel warned that chemical plants in the United States could be targets for Al

- Qaeda.

o Media investigations pointed out that many of these facilities had high

- risk tanks unguarded and acting as very exposed targets.

o The EPA has found that more than 470 chemical facilities in the United States put 100,000 people or more at risk for a chemical release disaster.

• Chemical security and sa fe ty is a national security issue , as stated by the White House.

o President Obama, as a s enator, referred to chemical plants as stationary weapons of mass destruction spread all across the country.

o The Government and all stakeholders need to treat this as a national security issue.

• Wrote an op

- ed 10 years ago with Rick Hind that called out these same issues. Many of the se problems remain.

• Said that the G overnment is not treating this with enough urgency

• The bigger challenge is political due to the chemical i ndustry’s lobbying money driving the discussion in untenable directions.

• The Government must recommend decisive action.
Afternoon Open Session EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 20 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCJohn Gustafson, LEPC Montgomery Co unty , Maryland , remarked:

• A s urvey identifying active LEPCs should be done again. It was last done 4 years ago.
o George Washington University has done the survey in the past

. o Is there a way to coordinate n on
- g overnmental o rganizations (NGO s ) to do it with F ederal funds?

• Update NRC

- 1 (T he Orange Book). It is the only statutory guidance in EPCRA. It has not been updated in 5 years. The people who used to update it have retired.

• NRC meetings should include a section on presentations and results coming from the EO working group

. o Attorneys f rom the various enforcement arms need to coordinate to provide consistent guidance. This will make sure that commonalities are understood and provided.

o D O T monies should be set aside for training and should be expanded if necessary. It is the only money le ft ; EPCRA monies are gone, and Superfund money is gone.

o Cross

- training was cancelled last year. This should be reversed and picked up by another agency if possible.
Kent Anderson, ASTI , remarked :

• Discussed emergency planning and response

• All the EO agencie s are involved in different aspects.

• ASTI runs drills for facilities and first responders

. During the drills, e ach facility is requested to bring in local fire dep artments and call the NRC as a simulation.

o In one case, a simulated call was made , and the di scussion was conveyed poorly. Doing the drill taught people a lot.

o A dummy call for a fire department should be made as well. The f ire c hief will use a stop watch and time how long it will take the fire trucks to show up.

o The drills also demonstrate the difference between the fire department standard teams

versus HAZMAT teams

. Even if a fire department team can get there in 3 to 5 minutes, they may not have the correct equipment, and the ones that do, the HAZMAT teams, are 30 minutes away.

o Had a motto: “I f you don’t know, don’t go.”

• There are many things that inhibit the ability for companies to set up emergency response plans , including current regulations.

o PSM and RMP require facilities to have an emergency response plan; however , a full blown response p lan may trigger additional costs, regulations, or documentation

. Many companies’ emergency response plans are simple and pass the buck to the fire department and other emergency responders. The best example is evacuating the building and having local emerg ency response deal with it, but not coordinating training because that would cause extra paperwork.

• This is a good opportunity to go back in and weed the garden.

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 21 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC• Can regulations be reoriented to provide incentives to facilities to push them to do what the G overnment wants them to do , as opposed to making it harder to do so?
Charlotte Brody, Blue Green Alliance , remarked:

• Picked up on comments from the previous speakers

• In favor of harmonization , with two caveats :
o Simplification does not mean weakening but actually means strengthening

o It should focus on the vision of the E xecutive order.

• They learned from C hem HAT that information on the existing W ebsite is effectively buried. It is hard for the lay person to find information.

o This kind of information needs to come first under harmonization.

o What is dangerous, why, and how can we protect the community first?

• Exemption for OSHA Voluntary Protection Program ( VPP ) inspections should be ended , and retail establishments should be included.

• We can move to inh erent safety by thinking about where there is money for pilot projects that test alternatives. This provides an incentive for facilities and companies to start looking at solutions.

• Dr

. Michaels provided a follow

- up: It’s easy to say a facility is an outli er because it blew up

. A question to the audience, in the comments for section 6, is if you would be interested in a better definition of what an outlier may be.
Kent Anderson, ASTI , commented:

• Referenced HR 2 8 68 : Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Ac t of 2013

• Disagrees with a past speaker. Although not all accidents can be prevented, c atastrophic consequences can be preventable

.
• The focus on emergency response should be making sure that first responders have all of the resources they can get.

o In New J ersey , it was found that firefighters would need to call upon resources from other counties

. If we can prevent the possibility of a catastrophic event, we reduce the need for resources dealing with catastrophic events.

o The problem we have is a scarcity of resources.

• If industry continues to state that they cannot change and that accidents , disasters, and catastrophes are inevitable, then instead of taxing the public, w e should be taking the money from the current record facility profits and redistributing i t through a fund to emergency responders and the victims’ families

.
• The G overnment’s responsibility is protecting people and property in the case of chemical disasters and their e ffects

. Closing Comments

• Jack Eisenhauer closed the meeting :
o Said the next session will be in Houston on January 24 EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 22 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCo A docket will be established for today’s notes.

o The W ebsite for the working group is www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html

. o Comments t hat have specific suggestions on how to improve the EO implementation are welcome and should be sent to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

.
• Dr . David Michaels provided closing comments :
o We have found this session very useful

. We thank you for your comments.

o We are grateful especially to those who remained here throughout the day.

o Thank you to our facilitator Jack for doing a great job.

o We are committed to improving the safety of chemical facilities.

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 23 January 14, 2014 Washington, DCP articipant Analysis

Stakeholder Group 1/14 /2014 Washington, D.C.

Chemical Producer 6 Ag Supply 0 Chemical Storage 3 State/Local Regulator 0 First Responder 2 Media 1 Owner/Operator 3 Industry Association 12 Labor Organization 3 Federal Representative 16 Environment/Community 5 Consensus Organization 0 Other: 4 Citizen 0 Education 1

Security 0 Vendor 0 State/Local 0 Tribal 0 Health/Research 0 

## TOTAL (Attended In

- Person) 

## 56
Conference Call 93


## Attended (In

Person & Conf Call) 149

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 24 January 14, 2014 Washington, DC

# Executive Order 13650 Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security
**January 14, 2014 Public Listening Session**  Hosted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Labor (DoL) Location: GSA’s ROB Auditorium, 301 7 th Street SW, (7 th & D Streets), Washington, DC 20407 

## Agenda 8:00 a.m.

– 9:00 a.m. Registration 9:00 a.m.

– 9:25 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, and Overview Jack Eisenhauer , Facilitator
David Michaels, OSHA, Executive Order 13650 Working Group Co

- Chair Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Mathy Stanislaus , EPA, Executive Order 13650 Working Group Co

- Chair Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Dave Wulf , D HS/ Office of Infrastructure Protection Deb Satkowiak , Department of Justice/ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives TBD , DHS / United States Coast Guard (USCG) Karis Gutter, Department of Agriculture (USDA)

9:25 a.m.

– 9:50 a.m. Overview of Section 6 a Lisa Long, OSHA

9:50 a.m.

– 10:10 a.m. Listening Session Format Jack Eisenhauer, Facilitator

10:10 a.m.

– 4:20 p.m. Comments from Listening Session Participants
4:20 p.m.

– 4:30 p.m. Closing Remarks
David Michaels, OSHA, Executive Order 13650 Working Group Co

- Chair Assistant Secretary of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 4:30 p.m. Adjournment
Persons may also submit written comments to NPPD/ISCD/Mailstop 0610, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, SW, Arlington, VA 20598

- 0610. Comments will also be accepted by email at: EO.Chemical@hq.dhs.gov or through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov

. For more information on EO 13650, please visit https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html and https://www.dhs.gov/topic/chemical

- security

.