Executive Order 13650 Listening Session, Los Angeles , CA

Date: January 9 , 2014

Location: Mt. Saint Mary’s College, Doheny Campus, 10 Chester Place, Los Angeles , CA 90007

- 2598
Introduction and Opening Remarks

Jack Eisenhauer , Moderator, introduced the proceedings:

• Welcomed everyone to the listening session and introduced the panel

• Mentioned future listening sessions

• Written comments can be sent to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov . These comments will be included in th e docket

.
• Announcements :

o Please put phones on vibrate

. o Session is being recorded for note

- taking purposes

. o Emergency exit information and restroom locations were provided for the facility

.
• The p urpose of this session is to p rovide stakeholders with an over view of and progress on E xecutive O rder 13650 : Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (EO) , as well as to give the public an opportunity to provide comments, feedback, and suggestions

. Steven John, Director, Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) Southern California Field Office :

• Mr. Stanislaus is delayed at the airport . We expect to see him here shortly.

• Each of our agencies has important roles under the Executive O rder. For example, the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) is primarily focuse d on security at facilities, and the Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) is primarily focused on worker health and safety. EPA focuses on facility safety and the protection of human health and the environment in and ar ound chemical facilities.

• EPA is committed to improving the way that facilit ies, local government s , and the F ederal G overnment rel a y and share information. We are also committed to improving access of information to communities, especially communities of color and those that are underserved.

• We are taking this Executive O rder very seriously. Over the next 3 months, we will schedule several more listening sessions, including W ebinars.

• I would like to highlight some of the accomplishments made under this E xecutive O rder so far:

o A pilot project has been established in EPA Region II . The pilot is defining high

- risk and inspection prioritization among the agencies and is determining which information will be shared among each another and with first responders.

o EPA was also active in developing the recent Ammonium Nitrate Advisory. On August 30, EPA, OSHA, and the Department of Justice/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ( ATF ) issued a c hemical a dvisory that p rovides information on the hazards of a mmonium n itrate storage, handling, and management.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 1 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)o We are currently working on drafting a Request for Information (RFI) concerning modifications to the Risk Management Program (RMP).

o EPA is drafting potential options for improving risk management and safety programs by collecting and sharing best practice information with industry and local communities.

• We are looking forward to the discussion here this evening.
Jay Vicory, Director, Department of Labor , Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) San Diego Field Office :

• Thank you for being here tonight.

• We come here with a common interest : to hear from you concerning how to improve chemical safety and security.

• The Process Safety Management (PSM) standard was published in 1992, partly in response to several catastrophic incidents that occurred at chemical facilities. We are all familiar with what happened in Bhopal , India, as well as at the 1989 Philips Petroleum incident in Pasadena, Texas.

• Despite the ben efits of the PSM standard, significant incidents still occur:

o In 2004, there was a n explosion at Formosa Plastics

. o There was a fire i n 2012 at the Richmond Chevron Refinery , which sent more than 15,000 people to hospital with breathing disorders.

o There was t he incident in West, Texas in 2013 , which created this Executive o rder.

• Federal a gencies on the working group are concerned and seek your comments.
Earl (Jack) Whitley, Transportation Specialist, Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materi als Safety Administration, Western Region :

• Thank you for coming this evening. The Assistant Director was unable to attend this evening, but I will advise him of what we hear this evening

. Amy Graydon, Chief, Policy & Rulemaking Branch, Department of Homel and Security (DHS) :

• Thank you all for joining us here tonight.

• I would like to acknowledge that t he ATF has also been participating in the working group. A representative is joining us on the phone to hear the se comments

.
• DHS brings a unique security

- centric perspective to chemical security. We accomplish this task through voluntary and regulatory programs . Regulatory programs include the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) and the DHS Chemical Facility Anti

- Terrorism Sta ndards (CFATS).

• Our work within the Office of Infrastructure Protection has show ed us the value of engaging with our stakeholders.

• We are looking forward to hearing a diverse set of perspectives.
Lisa Long, Director, Office of Engineering Safety, OSHA, Department of Labor (DOL) , provided a review of progress to date on Section 6 of the Executive O rder : EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 2 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)• OSHA is leading the Section 6 working group. We are tasked with policy and standards modernization , which encompass es three ma in tasks:

o In the first 90 days, we are d evelop ing a list of options.

o In the second 90

- day period, we are engaging with stakeholders for input.

o In the third 90

- day period, we will be writing a plan to implement the chosen options.

• We have a document that was made public last week, outlin ing the options we are considering.

• [Ms. Long provided a brief overview of the options document , “Executive Order 13650, Section A: Solicitation of Public Input on Options for Policy, Regulation, Standards, and Modernizati on , ” l ocated at: https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/Section_6ai_Options_List.html

. ]

• We are interested in your feedback concerning the options that are presented. They are only options at this time.

The moderator provided the ground rules for the listening session . The goal is to give everyone an opportunity to speak and to be respectfu l of everyone’s time:

• This is a listening session. The purpose is to hear your comments. The point is not to come to consensus. Please respect the options of others.

• We are very interested in specific suggestions , as these would be the most helpful.

• Ple ase feel free to provide written comments to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

.
• Individuals providing comments will be limited to 5 minutes.

• Following any remarks, members of the panel may ask questions for additional cla rification and understanding.

• After all registered speakers have had an opportunity to present, we will open the floor to anyone who would like to speak . Those additional speakers will also be limited to 5 minutes.

Martha A rguello , Executive Director, Phy sicians for Social Responsibility , provided the following comments:

• We firmly believe that we should be preventing these disasters and that w e should be moving to safer alternatives.

• Voluntary programs have failed. We have seen that failure in New Jerse y and other S tates.

• Many people do not know that they are living next to hazardous facilities.

• We think that there should be regulations looking at o il e xtraction f acilities that are currently exempt. For example, w e are standing on a site with an oil wel l on its border. Trucks are moving in and out of that site. Regulations have not addressed the hazards associated with that.

Jose Bravo , Executive Director, Just Transition A lliance, provided the following comments:

• Regarding comments on CFATS : DHS says that several thousand facilities are no longer in the CFATS program because they no longer have sufficient quantities of chemicals . DHS refuses to make information about these sites public. We would like to know. We can use the Freedom of

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 3 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)Inf ormation Act with EPA to obtain this type of information , but DHS has an obligation to the communities as well

.
• You may exempt thousands of companies from CFATS , but I want you to hear about communities with hundreds of chemical plants and exposures and th at may and do experience facility

- related accidents . When you exempt companies, it does not benefit the communities

.
• The G overnment needs to empower communities and be responsive to them as well

.
• Voluntary processes have not worked in the past. EPA’s Tox ic Release Inventory ( TRI ) is voluntary , and communities do not know about what is being done in these facilities because their information sharing is voluntary

.
• I doubt that any member of the panel lives in one of the communities that I am speaking about today. These communities are marginalized by their presence near such facilities. These communities have gone for years without being heard

.
• There was recently another accident in Mossville, Louisiana and a large train explosion in the Dakotas. These in cidents are not rare or isolated ; they are happening in low

- income communities and communities of color at a disproportionate rate.
Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency , and EO T r i

- chair, joined the panel and introduced himself.

Jessie Mar quez , Founder and Executive Director, Coalition f or a S afe E n vironment , p rovided the following comments:

• I will share with you something that no one else in this room has ever had to experience. I am a victim of a horrific ch emical explosion. When I was 16 years old, we lived fence

- line and across the street from an oil refinery. One day, it caught fire and blew up.

• I can tell you that during incidents such as this , p eople are burned and killed in those first few minutes

. In this specific incident, over 300 residents were burned.

• Five children, along with my mother, father , and grandmother , all lived in this area. A ll of us were burned with either first

- , second

- , or third

- degree burns

. Three tanks blew up that day

ar ound dinner time. The impact of that explosion knocked us to the floor.

• We were running to the car when a second explosion occurred . We ran back into the house as cars were crashing in the intersection, hearing the sounds of people screaming. We decided to run to a family member ’s house a few blocks away; then there was a third explosion.

• My mother was 7 months pregnant. We were forced to jump over a wall to escape.

• A woman asked me to save her baby. Both the mother and child were badly burned. She threw the baby to me.

• I did not find out what caused the explosion until about 10 years ago. A vehicle that was not grounded caused the fire, which killed two workers nearby. I had see n one of the bodies that was thrown through the air by the explosion.

• Prevention and planning are the keys to facility safety. I have specific examples of other things that have happened and have recommendations to give you. I will go on until my time is up , and I will submit written comments as well

. EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 4 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)• Regarding p ower failu res , c hemical facilities, just like oil refineries, do not have back

- up power systems. Even when they do, they may not work, or they may not be able to handle the capacity to maintain a safe environment. Why do agencies permit them to operate without ade quate power back

- up systems?
Austin Price, Field Director, Cal ifornia Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) , provided the following
comments:

• Please accept this as formal comments submitted on behalf of 25 organizations in California and 32 in Texas

.
• We represent stakeholders , including first responders, environmental organizations, community members near high

- risk facilities, plant workers, business owners, and consensus standards organizations.

• We urge you to use the full extent of your legal authority to eliminate these chemical hazards by ensuring that we use safer chemical processes when feasible

.
• We stand together in solidarity with community members, workers, and organizations in California, whose lives and heath are at risk from preventable chemic al disasters.

• Every day, many Americans live within the shadow of 12,000 chemical plants

.
• Public input is critical , and we applaud the panel members for scheduling these listening sessions.

• Communities and workers who are exposed to preventable chemical disasters every day are tired of the delay. The incident in West, Texas occurred over 8 months ago. The latest releases at the Chevron facility occurred 6 months ago. Other chemical incidents occur virtually every week.

• Our study identified a t least 25,000 incidents at American Chemistry Council

- (ACC) affiliated facilities.

• The EPA proposed new requirements in 2002 that could prevent many chemical disasters by tr ansition ing to safer chemical processes that are effective and affordable.

• Since 2001, hundreds of facilities have switched to safer chemicals and processes. However,

v oluntary efforts are not enough. More than 100 million people still remain at risk in the U

. S

.
• It is time for the President and the EPA to use their authority un der the Clean Air Act and through other authorities to require the use of safer alternatives. We encourage you , to the full est extent of your legal authority , to adopt enforceable prevention

- based requirements that eliminate these chemical hazards by e nsu ring the use of safer chemicals wherever feasible.

• Speaking for myself , Los Angeles is a hotbed of these kinds of facilities. There are over 16 facilities in Los Angeles County alone that put at least 100,000 people at risk. T here is a facility in Santa Fe Springs that puts nearly 5 million people at risk.

• We are familiar with incidents at Richmond, California and West, Texas. A similar incident in a city like Los Angeles would be catastrophic

.

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 5 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)• Ms . Durkovich had asked me earlier [ in Sacramento, Californi a] what I meant in prior listening session comments regarding shifting the paradigm from r isk m anagement to r isk p revention , so I brought her a letter explaining my point.

• 90 days after 9/11, the Blue Plains Treatment Plan in Washington, D

. C

. halted the use of chlori ne, thereby decreasing the risk for 1.7 million people at a cost of only $0.50 per water user per year.

• The program in New Jersey still has nearly 90 facilities that have not complied , illustrating that voluntary programs will not address the issue.

• Mr. Stanislaus asked a clarifying question : You mentioned some statistics about the New Jersey program . Do you have those?

o Mr. Price responded : That information is available in additional written comments that we will submit.

• Mr. Stanis laus asked a clarifying question : You mentioned 16 high

- risk RMP facilities in Los Angeles County. Do you have a list of those facilities?

o Mr. Price responded: Yes, I do. T here are 15 or 16 facilities that are just at 100,000 threshold, and there are a few more that fall below the 100,000 threshold.
Ronald Thomas, Technical Manager, Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) , provided the following comments:

• I have been in the explosives business for 40 years. I h ave handled ammonium nitrate (AN) facilitie s in different S tates and countries.

• I n October 2014, IME submitted recommendations for the working group to consider. We are awaiting feedback , but I would like to focus here on those relating to AN:

o There is no other safer substitute for AN.

o The EO wa s in response to the event in West, Texas. That facility was not compliant with a number of regulations and industry best practices

. o IME has been a forerunner of safe practices.

o We support the updating and strengthening of OSHA regulation of 29 CFR 1910

. 109 ( i ) , including eliminating the option of storing AN in combustible structures and advising first responders to not fight fires where AN is involved.

o If the facility in West, Texas had been compliant, we do not believe that we would be here today.

o We applaud OSHA ’ s actions to issue “ Notices of Violation ” to the Texas Fertilizer Company. However, this standard, which was issued i n 1971, needs to be updated.

o The current National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA ) 400 code, currently under revision, needs to be revised to include these two recommendations (above) as well.

• Given that there has never been an accidental explosion of AN at a facility compliant with OSHA standards , w e believe that OSHA ’ s rules today are sufficient bu t do need to be improved

.
• RMP lacks OSHA ’ s perspective, good housekeeping, and material management standards. More regulation is not the answer to preventing tragedies. We need to ensure that outlying facilities are brought into compliance. EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 6 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)• The West, Texas incident shows that age ncies are failing to ensure regulatory compliance. Rather than changing regulations, it would be better to focus on compliance for all.

• The Ammonium Nitrate Security Program ’s (ANSP ’s ) ill

- conceived chain of custody approach will have a catastrophic impac t to our industry. We ask DHS to submit a Supplemental N otice of P roposed R ulemaking t o include exempt ions for transportation activities covered under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) , for ATF

- regulated businesses, and for the registration requirement for persons transferring ownership or receiving AN. It does not make sense to overlay a redundant vetting scheme upon people already vetted by ATF and determined to be trustworthy to handle explos ives.

• Mr. Stanislaus asked a clarifying question : Regarding t he outlier issue you mentioned , w hat would be your thoughts for how to best deal with outliers?

o Mr. Thomas responded : This issue has always been a challenge. We need to get rid of some of the outdated and dangerous practices regarding the storage and handling of AN. Once AN is burning, it will melt, and that is what brings the greatest danger.

• Mr. Stanislaus asked a clarifying question : How should PSM and RMP be better aligned with respect to AN ?

o Mr. Thomas responded : That is a great question but a challenge. Let me think about that.

Winston Johnson , Member , East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, provided the following
comments:

• I am here today because I was concerned about the gap f rom exempting the oil and gas drilling industry.

• In my community of Long Beach, we have oil and fracking operations . I can see a refinery from my street.

• I am not only concerned about potential explosions but also about higher cancer rates for years to come following an incident

.
• If we are going to regulate chemical facilities, then we need to regulate all chemical facilities.

• One may ask, “ W hat is the economic impact of resuming public safety management enforcement? ” I am not an economist, but I can on ly imagine what the impact would be on the healthcare system if we were to have an incident similar to what happened in Richmond, C alifornia or Wilmington, C alifornia

.
• I have seen some less severe incidents in which the transportation of oil and gas products have caused issues for entire neighborhoods. It makes a news cycle for a day, but the impact lasts well beyond its media coverage.

• If we are serious about prevention, we need to also look at fracking. In southern Ca lifornia , we are more likely to encounter an earthquake than a terrorist attack. We need to look at alternative energy sources to move away from these practices.

• Mr. Stanislaus asked a clarifying question: Regarding t he exemptions you were referring to

ea rlier, were you referring to the mention of exemption on p age 16 of the document?

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 7 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)o Mr. Johnson responded: Yes, on p age 16 of the document, items A & B. The passage is as follows:
Identifying Facilities Covered under Existing Process Safety and Security Regu lations OSHA does not require PSM

- covered facilities to register with OSHA. However, EPA requires RMP

covered facilities to register with EPA a risk management plan that indicates whether the facility is also covered under PSM. This presents an opportunity for EPA and OSHA to collaborate by using EPA’s existing RMP reporting system to identify PSM

- covered facilities, even when not covered under RMP. In addition, NPPD is evaluating how to more effectively identify outlier entities not in compliance.
Options :
a. Should facilities covered under PSM but not RMP be required to register under the RMP reporting system? Under the existing RMP reporting system, only RMP

- covered companies report to EPA whether they are covered under OSHA’s PSM standard ( EPA and OSHA ). b. Ho w can DHS most effectively identify entities that have not submitted required CFATS’ Top

Screens? DHS believes that it has received CFATS Top

- Screens from the majority of facilities that should have submitted them, but like any regulatory program that reli es in part on self

reporting, 100% compliance is difficult to achieve. The expansive and dynamic nature of the business communities that use CFATS COI further increases the difficulty of doing so under CFATS. Nevertheless, DHS is committed to pursuing all reasonable measures to identify potential high

- risk chemical facilities that are not among those that have already complied with initial CFATS requirements, and we will continue to work to get those facilities into compliance. ( DHS /NPPD ).
Mark Lopez, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice , provided the following comments:

• I live with my family in the shadow of several chemical facilities and in the heart of the transportation corridor.

• Transportation safety is a high concern for me

.
• About 10 years ago, we had a train derailment in my community. At the time, I did not appreciate how serious this incident could have been. Residents fled the community and did not return.

• More recently, there was a double tanker that fell off the fr eeway and poured oil into the community, which then ignited.

• I think about safer routes, prevention, and alternative energy sources. I learned of the EO a few days ago, and I am still researching information.

• I cannot emphasize how urgent this issue is

. I think about my daughter, who is about to turn 2 , and about my daughter who will be born in a few weeks. I think about them having to deal with these same experiences in their own lives.

Maria Ramo s , Member , Communities for a B etter E nvironment, provid ed the following comments: (Ms. Ramos had another participant translate her comments)

• I am a resident of Wilmington, California. In my community, I live close to the refineries , and I am exposed to accidents at these facilities. I am here today to ask you to take steps to prevent these accidents. EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 8 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)• Many people in my community suffer from asthma, respiratory illnesses, and cancer.

• We want to be protected from dangerous companies that use and store chemicals , many of which are explosive and flammable.

• We als o have many schools near these facilities.

• I li ved through an explosion at one of these refineries several years ago.

• We want these regulations to be mandatory.

• These refineries do not have any respect for the communities nearby. For example, one facility had a release that ru in ed our Christmas.

• The smells from this facility cause nausea, dizziness, headaches, and stomach problems.

• I t seems that no one respects our health. All of these accidents impact our health and quality of life. These are problems, e specially for the youth of our communities.

• It is not justice when our communities are forced to breathe these toxic chemicals and our children’s lives are put a risk.

• It is a very painful experience to open your window and realize that you cannot tolerate the gas smell.

• We ask those of you who have the authority to protect the residents o f Wilmington . I am sure that in other communities , such as Palos Verdes, you would stop these problems.

• Mr. Vicory asked a clarifying question : The rel ease you were referring to, when was that?

o Ms. Ramo s responded : On December 31, when we left for the city, we could smell it. Then we saw on the news that there was a spill.

o A member of the audience clarified that 13 workers from the Conoco Phillips fac ility were taken to the hospital. This just happened a few weeks ago.
Alicia Rivera, Communities for a B etter Environment , provided the following comments:

• It is sad for me to see a low

- income community like Wilmington deal with so many incidents.

• One loc al oil extraction company had an excess in storage , and it was spilling into the area where people work. You could see them running around trying to cover it up.

• I was celebrating with my family over the holidays , and I did not get the call for evacuati on until about 1 :00 am

.
• An inspector came, but at that point the levels had reverted back to normal.

• There are so many facilities that manufacture chemicals in support of the refineries; many of these are very close to schools and homes (less than 1 mile ).

• Refineries are not going to participate in voluntary programs.

• We need monitors and enforcement in a timely fashion . By the time an inspector comes , the level of toxics has lowered to normal limits.

• The explosion at the Chevron facility was caused by too much corrosion in a pipe. For a year t he facility refused to address this issue until there was an accident. That is just one example of how voluntary measures do not work.

So nny Roque , East Yard Center for Env iro nm ent al Justice, provided the following comments:

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 9 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)• I live in a community just a few blocks away from a rail line where there have been accidents. I also worked at a refinery for 7 years. At that time, we had spills all the time , and nothing was done about i t.

• There was an explosion at that refinery. A person I knew all of my life was very badly burned. The plant, which produced mineral spirits and linseed oil, eventually closed.

• I would support any policy for safer technologies

.
• In my community at nighttim e, we can smell bad things.

• The rail line in our community is contaminated.

• I am in support of the new safety policy.
The moderator moved to open session and welcomed anyone who would like to speak to come forward.
Jesse Marqu ez, Founder and Executive Director, Coalition for a Safe Environment , provided the following comments:

• Thank you for taking the time to be here today. It is very important that the public has an opportunity to speak and present.

• Chemical facilities do not u se the best available control technologies. I don’t believe refineries when they say that better technologies don’t exist. It took years before we saw that vapor recovery systems were cost effective. They are not mandatory. Why?

• The Clean Air Act prov ides you with full authority for regulation. The G overnment is negotiating with industry as to what is acceptable to them. That is not acceptable to the public

.
• You should take an inventory of all the best technologies that are available for each type of chemical that is out there.

• Oil r efineries frequently have equipment malfunctions and failures . We see fla ring every month from nearly every refinery. Flaring is prevention. The refinery says flaring is to protect the public , but that’s not true. The re are v apor recovery systems that can prevent the need for flaring. Why are the vapor recovery systems not mandatory?

• Why are there inadequate investigations and fines? The fines that are levied are meaningless to such large companies with large profits

.
• Emissions reporting is a joke. I looked at emissions from all refineries in the area from 2000 to 2010. I can show you , based upon data collected elsewhere , that these reports are not accurate.

• The flaring we are talking about is underestimated by th e facilities. Why? Because they only report when it involves a major incident.
Ronald Thomas, Technical Manager, Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), provided the following
comments:

• I was going over Section B of the Policy Options document , and I believe that you asked some good questions about the PSM standard. They are well covered there.

• It is good to see an effort to share industry best practices.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 10 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)• Regarding s ome of the ATF standards , ATF is looking at making AN more difficult to obtain and

use in improvised explosive devices ( IEDs ) . There are other substances , such as black powder and smokeless powder , that are easy to obtain and use for those same purposes.

• Some binary products (e.g. , exploding targets) available to the general public could cause tragic consequences. It does not make sense to impose regulatory requirements upon industry when these other alternative products are so readily available to the general public. There are people who are making these items on their own in th ei r homes, which is obviously a very dangerous practice.

• PSM needs updating, but we rely upon it very heavily and have used it successfully in the explosives industry

. Angelica Romero, People Not Pozos , provided the following comments:

• I would like to speak about the list of regulated substances. I do not consider myself an expert; however, I am hoping that others who are experts will do the right thing to protect us.

• The oil industries in our communities are making us sick. All facilities exempt from the C lean A ir A ct need to be regulated.

• The thresholds for the regulated chemicals need to be changed. The current thresholds are not sufficient. We are seeing reports of nose bleeds, asthma, and other ailments near facilities that are reported to be meetin g the requirements.

• I do not believe that any dangerous facility should be located near a densely populated community.
Jesse Marquez, Coalition for a Safe Environment , provided the following comments:

• Let’s talk about homeland security and how safe we are in Wilmington

. o We have problems with buffer zones between facilities stores and roads/neighborhood. The security doesn’t address the risk.

o Instead of having an 8’ chain link fence, let’s think about 20’ block walls.

• With regards to ports, so meone could use a small remote control boat with explosives.

o Nearby, a boater was stopped and searched. It was found that he had dynamite on the vessel. He was using it for fishing, but this event demonstrates how easy it would be to bring dynamite into a port. Where is the register of boat owners with explosives?

o In the Port of Los Angeles , a truck driver drove into the facility when he was not permitted. It was a longshoreman dock worker who stopped the man and held him for police

. o At a refinery, we need better protections to prevent vehicle intrusion, going beyond just a simple gate.

• In addition to o il r efineries, there are i ndependent fuel distributors. A lo cal distributor had 200,000 lbs

. but had reported no significant vapors. This distributor o ffered us a tour, during which I asked if they had any significant spills. They revealed that th ey had floating roof tanks, which an earthquake impacted.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 11 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)Jose Bravo, Just Transition Alliance, provided the following comments:

• I want to tell you about other communities where DHS has moved in and criminalized youth. DHS has put l ocal youth hanging out near rail cars on watch lists

. You need to be very careful about how to implement this process. I am afraid of the person who looks like Tim McVeigh, but we are seeing the potential for the Government to profile us

.
• The W est, Texas incident was 18 years to the day from the Oklahoma City bombing, in which AN was t he primary explosive ingredient, the same agent involved in West.

• If I put a 50 gallon drum of cyan ide in a well, I would be lab e led a terrorist. However, i f a company does that same thing or worse, they are perhaps fined, if they are even caught. Let u s think not only about policing people, but about policing industry as well.

• We need to encourage in dustry to engineer danger out of processes and to use safer chemicals.
Alicia Rivera, Communities for a Better Environment, provided the following comments :

• You are listening to us because of a tragedy. Why did it have to come to that?

• Where was the compliance and oversight in West, Texas?

• We need appropriate regulations and enforcement before a tragedy happens.

• At the Richmond, California accident, the facility had been warned repeatedly by the regulators, but the regulation was not enforced.

Ma r tha Arguello , Physicians for Social Responsibility, provided the following comments:

• Doctors have an oath to do no harm. Unfortunately, our environmental policies are not based upon the same ideal.

• We need jobs and economic development, but we expect the G ove rnment to watch the store to keep us safe.

• What do we want to be doing in 30 years? Do we want an economy dependent upon the everyday stress of chemicals accidents ?

• We are depending on the G overnment to infuse green chemistry into the industry. You have to transform our communities and economy to show us that we are not considered disposable anymore. Jesse Marquez, Coalition for a Safe Environment , provided the following comments:

• Hazardous s afety r isk a ssessments are a joke. When I read one, I always re ad what is supposed to be a worst

- case scenario. They always seem to have a scenario involving just one tank. They never address the cascading worst

- case scenario ( because one tank will involve others as well )

.
• In San Pedro, we have a natural gas facilit y tank there, along with trains. There i s also a refinery next door. An incident at one will impact the others.

• R isk assessments do not appear to be revised when facilities increase the size of their storage tanks.

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 12 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)• I have asked for copies of risk assessm ents

. I have not been given copies or provided an opportunity to see them

.
• When there is a comment period under Title V , EPA is commenting at the same time as the public. When I submit a 40

- page public comment on a T itle V permit, the G overnment will not see those comments.

• Health r isk assessments are not valuable. They contain statements such as how many people

“ might ” die of cancer. They do not address how many people have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , asthma, or symptoms of leukemia. T hey do not discuss how long people have been sick.

o We need something called a “ Health Impact Assessment. ” It includes a public health baseline.

o My research s hows that lung cancer near the P ort of Los Angeles has been going up 6% every year for the pas t 10 years. However, facilities there are reporting that public health is actually improving.

• Prevention is key. Any piece of equipment can be a problem. At the BP refinery in Carson, there was smoke coming out of the ground. A conveyor line undergroun d had caught on fire. There was no alarm or extinguishing system. The fire department responded and could not extinguish the fire initially. The y eventually came up with a plan to flood the tunnel. This was not previously identified as a potential risk

.
• Section 6 of your document asked specific questions. My answer to each of your yes / no questions is a resounding y es, they should be done. I’ll provide written comments on this as well.
Mathy Stanislaus , provided closing remarks:

• Thank you for taking th e time to be here today and to share this valuable feedback with us. It is extremely helpful to hear about your personal experiences. This is one of the reasons that we have pushed to have evening meetings : to hear the voices of community members who liv e near these facilities.

• T here will be a c ommunity Webinar in the coming weeks. We are working with representatives from around the country who have identified the need for i ndependent technical experts on the behalf of local communities . More details on this will follow.

• The document that was issued on Friday relates to policy and regulatory options that were identified during the listening sessions, as well as some that have been under consideration for a longer period. We ask that stakeholders submit comments regarding this document as soon as possible and not wait until the end of the 90

- day comment period.

• Tonight was not a single event. We intend to continue our engagement with you and other stakeholders , and we invite you to reach out to us throug h our email address and W ebsite.

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 13 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)INSERT PARTICIPANT ANALYSIS
Participant Analysis

Stakeholder Group 1/9 /2014 Los Angeles , CA

Chemical Producer 2 Ag Supply 0 Chemical Storage 0 State/Local Regulator 1 First Responder 0 Media 2 Owner/Operator 0 Industry Association 1 Labor Organization 0 Federal Representative 4 Environment/Community 21 Consensus Organization 0 Other: 1 Citizen 0 Education 0

Security 1 Vendor 0 State/Local 0 Tribal 0 Health/Research 0 

## TOTAL (Attended In

- Person) 

## 33
Conference Call 10


## Attended (In

Person & Conf Call) 43

EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 14 January 9, 2014 Los Angeles, CA (Evening Session)

# Executive Order 13650 Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security
**January 9, 2014 Listening Session**  Hosted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Labor (DoL) Location: Mount St. Mary’s College, Doheny Campus, 10 Chester Place, Los Angeles, CA 90007

- 2598 

## Agenda 5:00 p.m.

– 6:00 p.m. Registration 6:00 p.m.

– 6:20 p.m. Welcome, Introductions, and Overview Jack Eisenhauer , Facilitator
Mathy Stanislaus, EPA, Executive Order 13650 Working Group Co

- Chair Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Jay Vicory , Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Amy Graydon, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Joe Riehl, SAC/Wesley Beck , Department of Justice/ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Representative , Department of Agriculture (USDA) Earl (Jack) Whitley , Department of Transportation (DOT)

Overview Section 6 a Lisa Long, Director, Office of Engineering Safety, OSHA
6:20 p.m.

– 6:30 p.m. Listening Session Format Jack Eisenhauer, Facilitator
6:30 p.m.

– 7:50 p.m. Comments from Listening Session Participants
7:50 p.m.

- 8:00 p.m. Closing Remarks
Mathy Stanislaus, EPA, Executive Order 13650 Working Group Co

- Chair Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

8:00 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

.