EO Public Listening Session Notes Page 1

Webinar

November 25, 2013

Executive Order 13650 Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security Public Listening Session, 

Webinar

Date: November 25, 2013

Location: Online Webinar and teleconference

Introduction and Opening Remarks

• Sherri Witt, SRA International, remarked:

o She would be the facilitator for the Webinar.

o Notes from the Webinar will be published to the Federal Register.

o The goal of the session is to provide an overview of Executive Order 13650 (EO) to date 

and to provide a forum for the public to give comments.

o Slides and the notes will be posted on the Federal Register.

o Reviewed Webinar etiquette

o Reviewed the agenda:

 Webinar will be open until 12 p.m. EST

 Introductions

 Registered speakers to present their comments

 Opportunity for additionalspeakers to present

Summary and Progress to Date

• Mathy Stanislaus, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EO Working Group Co-Chair, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, discussed the goals of 

the EO and summarized the structure for the Webinar:

o Provided welcome and referenced the Texas City, TX; Springfield, IL; and D.C. listening 

sessions.

o Introduced other officials on the call:

 Lisa Long, Department of Labor/ Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA)

 Scott Breor, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

 Capt. Drew Tucci, DHS/U.S. Coast Guard

 Bill O’Brien, Department of Justice/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF)

 Paul Baumgardner, Department of Transportation (DOT)

 Karis Gutter, Department of Agriculture (USDA)

o On August 1, President Obama signed the Executive order.

o Each agency has an important role under the Executive order.

 OSHA: Health and safety

 ATF: Post-blast investigation

 EPA: Facility safety and protection of human health and environment

 DHS/IP: Security of chemical facilities
EO Public Listening Session Notes Page 2

Webinar

November 25, 2013

o Want to improve how information is shared among Federal partners and also with the 

regulated and public communities.

o Goal of the working group to improve the way that all levels of government and the 

private sector work together to improve safety and security in the chemical industry.

o Established sub-working groups:

 Sections 3 and 4: Improved coordination led by EPA and DHS

• Improve the way the Federal Government works together with 

regulators, first responders, industry, and communities

• Established a pilot program in EPA Region 2

o Uses the infrastructure created under the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act – the Local Emergency 

Planning Committees (LEPCs).

o Trying to establish methods for improving access to chemical 

inventory listings and other data necessary for first responders.

o Pilot held listening session on November 19, 2013 for local 

stakeholders

 Section 5: Information collection and sharing led by DHS

• Examining ways to improve how chemical facility information is 

collected and disseminated

• Developing potential options for a data sharing process that will 

coordinate data across the different organizations

 Section 6: Policy and standards modernization led by OSHA

• Developing options to improve existing risk management practices, 

including options for improving the storage, handling, and sale of 

Ammonium Nitrate (AN)

• Reviewing a list of chemicals on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards (CFATS) Chemicals of Interest list

• Reviewing chemical hazards covered by Risk Management Program 

(RMP) and other standards

 Section 7: Collection of best practices led by DHS

• Stakeholder outreach to develop solutions to be implemented in the EO 

final stages

• Coordinates the listening sessions

o EPA, OSHA, and ATF created the AN advisory on August 30, 2013

 Shares best practices and communicates the known hazards of storing and 

handling Ammonium Nitrate

o What to expect:

 Each section will progress in their subject area.

 Communicate status updates to stakeholders

• Working group strategizing how this information will be communicated

 Produce milestones established in the EO
EO Public Listening Session Notes Page 3

Webinar

November 25, 2013

• Ms. Witt established some Webinar ground rules:

o Consensus not expected

o Comments can be submitted to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

o Verbal comments will be limited to 5 minutes

o EO Working Group members may ask clarifying questions

Pre-Registered Speakers:

• Jeff Gunnulfsen, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), remarked:

o AFPM supports the listening session process

o Supports the NJ pilot program in Region 2. EPA should also conduct another pilot in 

another part of the country, specifically a more rural area.

o Recommended more emphasis on Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 

Act reporting, marketing the program, and related compliance assistance. Supports 

DHS’s engagement of different State agencies and State/local trade groups. 

Recommended that the EO Working Group talk to the Small Business Administration to 

track down additional facility and industry groups that are not engaged with the existing 

Government programs.

o Best approach is continuing to push compliance assistance and outreach to facilities as

opposed to creating more regulations.

o Question from Mr. Stanislaus: Are you suggesting that we should focus on smaller 

facilities in regards to outreach?

 Mr. Gunnulfsen’s response: I’m not necessarily suggesting focusing on smaller 

facilities. However, there is a good chance that out-of-compliance sites are 

smaller facilities because they are not connected to the industry groups’ 

resources that typically distribute information to the facilities.

• Cynthia Hilton, Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), remarked:

o There are a number EO deliverables coming due. What is the Working Group’s 

expectation for meeting those deadlines?

o At what point will the public learn that results are tied to those dates?

o Regarding information sharing, has seen the Federal Government sharing with each 

other to this point. Wants to make sure that information sharing goes two ways.

o All who have participated in this process have put forward recommendations. When and 

how will the public learn the responses to these recommendations?

o Re-endorsed all previous listening session comments from IME.

o Response from Mr. Stanislaus:

 EO Working Group anticipates providing a written status summary regarding the 

overall effort shortly.

 As we get to a point in each activity outlined in the EO, public input will be 

requested on each tangible task.

 If policies or changes are undertaken, they will be folded into the standard rule

and regulatory-making process. This will be down the road.
EO Public Listening Session Notes Page 4

Webinar

November 25, 2013

• Paul Orum, public citizen, stated:

o Would like to talk about modernizing the information foundation for chemical disaster 

prevention

o Has experience in the industry and how it relates to the Government

o Federal agencies should incorporate prevention through design in their programs.

 Regulations should produce improvements

 No current regulations produce prevention analysis

 What is the fate of deregulated facilities? It’s currently a black box.

o DHS needs to implement prevention through design to better understand how tiered 

out facilities become deregulated, as opposed to just dispensing regulated chemicals. 

This can be done in a few ways:

 Specifying basic parameters (HR 2868 outlines basic parameters, including 

technical feasibility and cost).

 Put prevention, including process design, first (at top of hierarchy), then 

jumping to conventional controls.

 Distinguish prevention from control.

 Enforce documentation in the decision-making process.

 Has to recognize that the market has trouble defining high-risk, low-occurrence, 

worst-case events. To help the market:

• Require chemical facilities to carry enough liability insurance to cover a 

worst-case release

• Allow rail to price liability insurance

• Remove the subsidies that allow for risk-shifting

o Plans to submit written comments

o Comment from Mr. Stanislaus: The EO Working Group would appreciate Mr. Orum 

submitting more comments in writing.

• Rick Hind, Greenpeace, stated:

o Building on Paul Orum’s comments

o Mr. Orum refers to planning for safer design. The 2009 HR bill labeled it as methods to 

reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.

o Prevention is the method of choice that needs to be used.

o According to the Congressional Research Service, EPA has listed about 473 facilities that 

it considers high-risk, meaning that they put 100,000 people or more at risk.

o Terrorism adds another element to the question of risk/hazard. Stephen Flynn at the 

Council on Foreign Relations warned that the chemical industry is unlike any other:

 Facilities are near urban populations.

 Facilities have the potential to inflict the greatest casualties due to a terrorist 

attack.

 In Mr. Flynn’s book, he states that without a strong mandate, it is unrealistic to

think that the industry will create Inherently Safer Technology (IST) on their 

own.
EO Public Listening Session Notes Page 5

Webinar

November 25, 2013

o President Obama has said that by employing safer technologies, we can reduce the 

attractiveness of chemical plants as a target.

o The NJ pilot is not transparent and has a sense of arrested development. State program 

has no legal authority.

o EPA has the regulatory authority to require IST through the Clean Air Act, 112R7A.

o Industry has a legal and moral obligation to protect the millions of people at-risk from 

chemical facilities. This is best done through requirements to research and implement 

IST.

• John Gustafson, Maryland LEPC, remarked:

o He is the unofficial spokesperson for emergency responders and planners.

o The EO Working Group has a great opportunity on improving response and facility 

safety.

o Passed out the Government Executive Magazine at the D.C. listening session. This 

magazine describes the use of management by objectives. Please consider the article in 

that magazine as a way to coordinate action across multiple stakeholder groups.

• This process has been used for 20 years by the National Response Team 

(NRT).

o Also passed out a document, entitled “What Should Be Done?”, in the California

Continuing Challenge meeting on informal actions taken by responders.

• Requested the EO Working Group put this online for public 

consumption

• Includes analyses and recommendations

o This is an opportunity to use a congressionally mandated responsibility to communicate 

directly to State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) and LEPCs.

• Update NRT 1. This is an ideal opportunity to understand what was 

done previously and to push it out electronically.

o Recommends:

• National and regional response teams should establish a committee on 

facility accident safety. This will supplement what is done in a number 

of other areas. This was considered previously, but it fell through the 

cracks. It should be resurrected.

• Use Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO), 

and put the AN scenario into that for local-level communication.

• Task force should communicate directly to governors to look at AN 

recommendations that came out in August.

o Comment from Mr. Stanislaus: The EO Working Group will include previously submitted 

information in the docket.

 Mr. Gustafson’s Response: He will electronically forward that information, plus 

the work provided at the D.C. listening session.

o Question from Mr. Stanislaus: Would you also have a recommendation regarding 

regional response teams?
EO Public Listening Session Notes Page 6

Webinar

November 25, 2013

 Mr. Gustafson’s response: Yes. There is an issue with coordinating DHS risk 

committees and the efforts of the LEPCs. The EPA Region 2 pilot program may 

look at that.

 Issue of how you bring together regional level response teams and coordinate 

them with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

During the open comment period, the following participants spoke:

• Michele Roberts, Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform stated:

o Thank you to Mr. Orum for laying out crucial recommendations, especially as it relates 

to risk-shifting.

o It is crucial that we have a process that includes safer design, which fenceline 

communities would appreciate.

o Echoed the need for a more comprehensive plan as it relates to regional response teams 

and LEPCs.

 Plan needs to include input from local communities, especially those with health 

disparities.

o Recommended looking at some community suggestions after the response to Hurricane 

Katrina and the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

 There were DHS–FEMA conversations with local community groups that may 

contain pertinent information for coordinating with responders.

o Suggested that in moving forward, it is crucial to have a process that checks to ensure 

that engagement is still occurring between businesses, responders, communities, and 

governments.

 Constant review of efforts is important to make sure that the best possible 

protection is being conducted and is available.

o Mentioned that data collection being used to better understand where health risks and 

problems are more prevalent.

• Paul Orum, public citizen, stated:

o The idea of a common Federal ID is a very difficult but important area. He encourages 

the Government to pursue it.

 Participated in past efforts on this topic and produced a document showing that 

a common facility ID would be an excellent way to report and identify gaps. It 

would also save money.

o Encouraged further development of smart reporting software. It validates and disallows

errors upon data entry, as opposed to having to catch these errors later.

• Bill Erny, American Chemistry Council (ACC), remarked:

o Spoke at the D.C. listening session about the ResponsibleCare® programs and 

incentivizing continuous improvement programs

o Would like to continue to focus on responsible care and continuous improvement

o Emphasized the issue of the adequacy of current regulations

 The current amount of regulation is proper.
EO Public Listening Session Notes Page 7

Webinar

November 25, 2013

 Regulatory agencies should continue to focus on compliance assistance 

activities.

• Examples: OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) and EPA Risk 

Management Program (RMP) are good programs at this time. They 

require a comprehensive approach to a safety management system that 

includes prevention of hazards, in addition to response and outreach.

o Would like to see better outreach and engagement with all groups (specifically 

dedicated resources to smaller groups)

o Current regulations in place provide a strong incentive for IST implementation. They 

should be used in conjunction with other risk management tools currently in place.

o ACC agrees that modernization of risk management policies is important:

 A periodic review of chemicals is certainly warranted, but this process must be 

transparent and must include all stakeholders.

 Review process based on sound science that is risk-based.

• Question from Mr. Stanislaus: In terms of NJ experience regarding IST, the chemical 

manufacturers note that many facilities have put into place measures that include simplification. 

Simplification was where facility owners found they could reduce risk. He is interested in further 

feedback regarding the results of the NJ requirements.

o Mr. Erny’s Response: NJ program needs to be considered in the context of the Toxic 

Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) program in the state of NJ. Their authority and the 

scope of that program are different than EPA or OSHA programs. There are complexities 

with trying to adopt a program like that on a national scale.

o Many of the measures that have been identified are measures routinely considered 

through the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) under the OSHA PSM standard.

• Cynthia Hilton, IME, stated

o In regards to AN, IME members consume 75 percent of the product. They are unaware 

of any accidental detonation of AN where regulation is followed.

o Regarding the EO deliverables:

 IME has a number of issues with the AN deliverable in August, including typos 

and outdated information.

 Requested to receive information regarding updates to that deliverable

 About half of the deliverables are due this Friday (November 29, 2013). Can the 

public expect status updates from the EO next week?

o Mr. Stanislaus’ response: There will be a summary out very shortly.

o Mr. Stanislaus’ response: There has been positive feedback regarding the AN advisory.

 Ms. Hilton’s response: Because their industry consumes 75 percent of the 

product, they hope to be included in any process to update the advisory.

• Michelle Roberts, ECHA, stated:

o Requested evening hours for EO listening sessions to allow fenceline community 

members who work during the day to participate
EO Public Listening Session Notes Page 8

Webinar

November 25, 2013

o Current regulations are not enough for many of the people who live along the fenceline.

This is a reason that people want further regulations implemented under the General 

Duty Clause of the Clean Air Act.

o Recommended a calendar of training and coordination between local and regional 

responders and local and regional governments to ensure a good response. There 

should be a hierarchical way of achieving training goals at different levels.

o Suggested that there should be a method to ensure that safety and security systems are 

checked regularly.

o Mr. Stanislaus’ response: The EO Working Group will look at the possibility of varying 

the time of future Webinars.

• Steve Taylor, Missouri Agro Business Association, remarked:

o Believes Missouri is the biggest user of AN for agricultural purposes

o To follow-up on Ms. Hilton comments:

 The advisory is very important. His organization is not directly endorsing 

everything in it, but they are characterizing it as a good first step for continuing 

dialogue.

 Any chance to increase the two-way dialogue between industry and the 

Government is important.

 The advisory can be a foundation for moving forward, provided that there is a 

good way to continue to comment back and forth.

o Organization is cooperating with OSHA and the State emergency group on their Region 7 

LEPC. They hope to have some information to exchange about the set up process.

o Mr. Stanislaus commented: The EO Working Group is interested in his thoughts 

regarding what further enhancements can be made to the AN advisory.

• Rick Hind, Greenpeace, commented:

o Ms. Roberts makes a good point about holding meetings in the evening or on the 

weekend when more affected stakeholders can participate.

o Agrees that IST and methods to reduce consequences needs to be a facility-level 

innovation. What is missing is prioritization and a true assessment and feasibility study 

requirement so that companies know the benefits and/or consequences of switching to 

an IST.

o There needs to be an umpire who reviews facilities and how they are approaching the 

possibility of using IST.

o Some in the industry have proposed legislation that asks for new rules and guidance, 

but industry has also asked for legislation from the EPA that could cripple the 

enforcement of the General Duty Clause.

o Government needs to provide requirements that force facilities to declare that IST is not 

feasible, instead of leaving it completely to the market.
EO Public Listening Session Notes Page 9

Webinar

November 25, 2013

Closing Comments

• Ms. Witt thanked participants and reminded them that additional comments could be 

submitted to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

• Mr. Stanislaus provided closing comments:

o Thanked the participants

o Wants to continue the conversation

• Ms. Witt mentioned that the interagency representatives will remain online until noon.

Participants Analysis: 

Attendees: 280

Attendee by Stakeholder Group

Chemical Producer 36

Ag Supply 22

Chemical Storage 16

State/Local Regulator 39

First Responder 19

Media 3

Owner/Operator 18

Industry Association 28

Labor Organization 6

Federal Representative 12

Environment/Community 14

Consensus Organization 1

Other 66
Executive Order 13650

Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security

November	25,	2013	Listening Session Webinar

Hosted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

and the Department of Labor (DoL)

Public Listening Session Webinar 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Agenda

Welcome and Overview

Mathy Stanislaus, EPA, Executive Order 13650 Working Group Co-Chair

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Interagency Representatives

Lisa Long, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Scott Breor, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Captain Drew Tucci, United States Coast Guard (USCG)

Bill O’Brien, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)

Paul Bomgardner, Department of Transportation (DOT)

Karis Gutter, Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Ground Rules for Public Listening Session 

Sherry Witt, Facilitator

Comments from Listening Session Participants 

Closing Remarks

Mathy Stanislaus, EPA, Executive Order 13650 Working Group Co-Chair 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

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.
Executive Order 13650 Working Group

Overview of Executive Order 13650

Public Listening Session 

Webinar

11/25/2013

10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Webinar & Phone Etiquette

 Mute your phone

 Do not use hold function (hold music will disrupt)

 Use the Q&A window to submit:

 Request for technical assistance with webinar or phone

 Request to speak during open session

 If you are presenting or selected to speak, be mindful of 

background conversations
Today’s Agenda

 Welcome & Overview

 Ground Rules for Public Listening Session

 Commencement of Public Listening Session

 Open Session (if time allows)

 Closing Remarks & Adjournment
Welcome & Overview

Mathy Stanislaus

Executive Order Tri-Chair

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Assistant Administrator

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Interagency Representatives

 Lisa Long

 Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration

 Scott Breor

 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection

 Captain Andrew Tucci

 Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard

 Bill O’Brien

 Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

 Paul Bomgardner

 Department of Transportation

 Karis Gutter

 Department of Agriculture
Enhanced Federal Coordination and 

Information Sharing

 The Executive Order calls upon Federal agencies to

initiate innovative approaches for working together

on a broad range of activities, such as identification

of high-risk facilities, inspections, enforcement, and

incident investigation and follow up.

 For example, the Executive Order requires that the

Federal agencies deploy a regional pilot program

that will validate best practices and test innovative

new methods for Federal interagency collaboration

on chemical facility safety and security.
Modernizing Policies, 

Regulations, and Standards

 The Executive Order directs Federal agencies to work with

stakeholders to improve chemical safety and security through

agency programs, private sector initiatives, Federal guidance,

standards, and regulations.

 For example, to reduce risks associated with ammonium

nitrate, agencies will examine new options to address the safe

and secure storage, handling, and sale of this explosive

chemical.
Working With Stakeholders To

Identify Best Practices

 The Executive Order directs key Federal agencies to

convene a wide range of interested stakeholders,

including representatives from industry, state, local, and

tribal governments, non-governmental organizations,

and the first responder community, to identify and share

successes to date and best practices to reduce safety

and security risks in the production and storage of

potentially harmful chemicals, including through the use

of safer alternatives, adoption of best practices, and

potential public-private partnerships.
Ground Rules

 Time allotments:

 Each presenter will have a maximum of five minutes to speak

 EO Working Group members may ask clarifying questions to the 

presenter

 Presenters who have registered to speak in advance will be

called upon by the moderator.

 Participants who did not sign up in advance may request to

speak during today’s session if time allows. Please submit a

request via the Q&A window.

 Participants can also submit their comments or additional input

to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov or through the Federal

eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No.

DHS-2013-0075).
Public Listening Session

 Jeff Gunnulfsen, AFPM

 Cynthia Hilton, IME

 Paul Orum

 Rick Hind, Greenpeace

 John Gustafson, Maryland LEPC
Public Listening Session

 Open comment session now in progress. Moderator will 

identify speaker.

 If your name is not called due to time constraints, please 

submit your comments to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. DHS-2013-0075).

 Comments may be mailed to: NPPD/ISCD/Mailstop 

0610, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray 

Lane SW, Arlington, VA 20598-0610.
Closing Comments & Adjournment

 For more information, email eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

 December public listening sessions:

 December 11, 2013 (Orlando, FL)

 December 16, 2013 (Webinar)