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

Webinar

Date: December 16, 2013

Location: Online Webinar and teleconference

Introduction and Opening Remarks

• Sherry 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 the Executive Order 13650 (EO) to 

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

o Slides will be posted on the Federal Register in addition to the notes.

o Reviewed Webinar etiquette.

o Reviewed the agenda:

 Webinar will be open until 6:30 p.m. EST

 Gave introductions

 Registered speakers to present their comments

 There will be an opportunity for additional speakers to present.

Summary and Progress to Date

• Jordan Barab, Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), EO 

Working Group Co-Chair, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor, discussed the goals of the EO and 

summarized the Webinar’s structure:

o He introduced other officials on the call:

 Mathy Stanislaus, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EO Working Group 

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

Response

 Barry Breen, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

 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

 Dean Dickinson, Department of Justice/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives (ATF)

 Paul Bomgardner, 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 is responsible for health and safety.

 ATF is responsible for post-blast investigations.

EO 13650 Page 1

Public Listening Session Webinar Notes

December 16, 2013
 EPA is responsible for facility safety and the protection of human health and 

environment.

 DHS/Infrastructure Protection is responsible for chemical facility security.

o The Federal Government wants to improve how information is shared among Federal 

partners and also with the regulated and public communities.

o The goal of the working group is to improve the way all levels of government and the 

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

o The working group established sub-working groups:

 Sections 3 and 4, led by EPA and DHS, focus on improved coordination through 

the following:

• Establishing a plan to improve the way the Federal Government works

together with regulators, first responders, industry, and communities.

• Established a pilot program in EPA Region II.

o Uses the infrastructure created under the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-To-Know Act for Local Emergency 

Planning Committees (LEPC)

o Trying to establish methods for improving access to chemical 

inventory listings and other data necessary for first responders

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

stakeholders.

 Section 5, led by DHS, focuses on information collection and sharing through the 

following:

• 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, led by OSHA, focuses on policy and standards modernization through 

the following:

• 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 the Risk Management Program 

(RMP) and other standards

 Section 7, led by DHS, focuses on collection of best practices through the 

following:

• Stakeholder outreach to develop solutions that will be implemented in 

the final stages of the EO

• Coordinating the listening sessions

• Ms. Witt established some Webinar ground rules:

EO 13650 Page 2

Public Listening Session Webinar Notes

December 16, 2013
o Consensus is not expected.

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

o Verbal comments on the Webinar will be limited to 5 minutes.

o EO Working Group members may ask clarifying questions.

o Participants who are not pre-registered may request to speak during the open comment 

period using the Webinar’s question-and-answer (Q&A) window.

o Comments may also be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at http://www.regulations.gov using Docket Number DHS-2013-0075.

o Comments may also be mailed to: NPPD/ISCD/Mailstop 0610, Department of Homeland 

Security, 245 Murray Lane SW, Arlington, VA 20598-0610.

Pre-Registered Speakers:

• Rom Chittim, American Petroleum Institute (API), made the following comments:

o Stated that he would focus his remarks on safer alternatives commonly known as 

inherent safety technologies (IST)

o There are several ways to conduct risk reduction:

 Passive 

 Active

 Procedural

 Inherent

o Facilities should address risk holistically and use all four strategies, not just using 

inherent safety as the only factor.

o The Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) published a book, Inherently Safer 

Chemical Processes: A Life Cycle Approach (2008), on inherent safety design and 

implementation that is based on site and process decision. CCPS indicates that such 

work is best done during the conceptual design phase and should not be forced ad hoc 

by regulations or be conducted through bolt-on functions.

o API says that the Government must first determine if the New Jersey IST program has 

solely been responsible for improved safety or security.

o API is not aware of any data that shows improved performance of the New Jersey pilot 

program. It argues that it is very difficult to successfully measure such IST programs.

o Efforts to measure inherent safety are still in the development stage. In the absence of 

rigorous metrics, it is difficult to measure the contributions that IST makes to 

improvements on safety and security.

o Inherent safety should not be seen as a silver bullet.

• Jennifer Gibson, National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD), remarked:

o NACD uses a Responsible Distributor® program to implement measures to improve 

safety for its members. Its members must develop and implement those measures or 

lose their membership.

EO 13650 Page 3

Public Listening Session Webinar Notes

December 16, 2013
o The chemical regulatory system in this country is complex and thorough. NACD 

members have the benefit of resources from trade associations to navigate these 

regulations.

o NACD has a 14-page (and growing) regulatory checklist for members.

o NACD members understand the importance of the regulations.

o NACD recommends that current regulatory requirements should be improved before 

adding any new regulations.

 Compliance assistance and outreach should be a primary focus. Most agencies 

have excellent materials available, but it is difficult to find those materials.

 Regulatory language needs to be clear.

 Checklists and simple measures need to be provided.

o NACD has serious concerns about mandated IST.

o Regulation and enforcement must be consistent. IST and mandatory duty clauses are 

difficult to enforce due to varying inspector interpretations of the regulations, causing 

differences in regulatory enforcement.

o NACD has concerns about one agency acting as an inspection proxy for the others, with 

this one agency holding data and other information in a single database.

o NACD has advice for identifying outliers:

 All stakeholders need to increase outreach to local officials and LEPCs.

 The Federal Government should leverage trade group programs to distribute 

materials to known facilities while focusing Government resources on finding 

true outliers.

o A question was asked by Lisa Long (OSHA): Does Ms. Gibson have any comments on 

performance versus prescriptive regulation?

 Ms. Gibson responded: A helpful guidance document is the most important,

and NACD the use of performance based regulation.

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

o AFPM supports both the EO listening session process and improved information sharing 

among Government agencies.

o AFPM provided the following comments:

 EPA tried joint inspections in the past, and it ended up being very time 

consuming for industry and agencies. We encourage the working group to

review what happened during this effort before taking a joint inspection 

approach.

 Security information for sites should only be shared with those that have a valid 

need to know when sharing data outside of Government stakeholders.

 The regulation focus should remain on current regulations rather than on the 

creation of new regulations. 

 Urged the working group to talk to the Small Business Administration

EO 13650 Page 4

Public Listening Session Webinar Notes

December 16, 2013
o March 1 is the timeframe for new Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know 

Act (EPCRA) requirements. This is a good opportunity for EPA to share more information 

to a specific audience.

o A question was asked by Barry Breen: Can Mr. Gunnulfsen discuss the March 1 

timeframe and what opportunities can be realized?

 Mr. Gunnulfsen responded: It is a great opportunity for EPA to make aware to 

those affected by EPCRA guidelines that there are these other initiatives 

occurring related to the Executive Order.

• John Gustafson, Retired National Response Team (NRT)/EPA, remarked:

o He complemented the effort and is impressed at the input from local responders.

o However, he has concerns that the SERCs are not providing many comments. LEPCs 

have also been quiet.

o There is a report stating the number of active LEPCs. It would be helpful to find a 

database of active LEPCs to use for communication.

o There are several issues he sees in the current regulatory landscape:

 The General Duty Clause is causing some confusion. A more enhanced 

interpretation of the clause is necessary to guide future discussions.

 There are opportunities with the NRT-1 document, which provides guidance to 

LEPCs on the preparation and implementation of hazardous materials 

emergency planning. It was updated once in electronic form. It should be 

updated and distributed to LEPCs again.

 NRT-1 was the only legislative requirement for national response teams that 

came out of the EPCRA.

o There are opportunities for outreach:

 The NRT March Conference should include the EO Working Group.

 There is another summer conference in Texas.

 The Continuing Challenge Conference in Sacramento.

o He has some concerns about resources. It may be necessary to reach out to nongovernmental organizations to do some of this work defined by the group. Funding and 

time are at a premium.

o The NRT did about 40 projects from 1995 onward. They used a management by 

objectives process. It used a one-page statement developed under a consensus effort. 

Please consider this when making decisions over the next year.

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

o She wanted to respond to Mr. Gustafson’s comments:

 The LEPC vision has not been fully realized.

 There needs to be caution regarding relying on a network that does not 

necessarily exist.

 There is funding from the Department of Transportation (DOT) for LEPCs. The 

hazardous materials (HAZMAT) community pays fees that provide that funding.

EO 13650 Page 5

Public Listening Session Webinar Notes

December 16, 2013
 Due to a change in Federal HAZMAT transportation law, there is an information 

collection request out to LEPCs asking for information that would show what 

progress these entities have made.

o IME is concerned that the information that may be shared with first responders is not 

appropriate for a public forum. She considers any information flowing through an LEPC 

as public information.

o IME has submitted a number of recommendations to the working group regarding how 

safety and security can be improved.

o A number of key deadlines have passed regarding the EO, and asked when the 

Government will arrive at some of the decisions so we can respond.

 IME is specifically interested in section 6.b addressing the handling and storage 

of ammonium nitrate.

o Ms. Long, in response, stated that she has been working on Section 6.b. The working 

group has been meeting deliverable deadlines to the White House and hopes to have 

the section 6 documentation available to the public soon. They will also be posted onto 

a Website.

• Jeff Sloan, American Chemistry Council (ACC), remarked:

o Represents the Chlorine Chemistry Division of the ACC

o Addressed several issues related to chlorine chemistry:

 Various water treatment facilities have moved from chlorine to sodium 

hypochlorite.

• Some incorrect conclusions have been drawn by these facilities making 

this change. 

• This is an uncommon example of an alternative chemical providing the 

identical efficacy. 

• A vast majority of chemicals do not have such good substitutes.

 Chemical substitution is not a simple process. Many site-specific factors come 

into play. There are always advantages and disadvantages.

 Additional Federal programs are not needed to prompt facilities to focus on 

chemical safety and security. CFATS, RMP, Process Safety Management (PSM), 

and HAZMAT programs all exist to regulate the chemical industry. Additional 

regulations may become paperwork drills that draw resources from these 

programs’ proper work.

 We are concerned that there are limited methods on measuring the metrics and 

data provided from any IST implementations.

o ACC encourages the Government’s efforts in improving its outreach and information 

coordination to the chemical community.

• Linda Phillips, LEPC California Region 1, remarked:

o She is speaking as an individual and not speaking on behalf of her LEPC.

EO 13650 Page 6

Public Listening Session Webinar Notes

December 16, 2013
o Chemical Safety Board (CSB) recommendations need to be carried out promptly and 

properly. CSB recommendations should not be left for 10 years or more before 

implementation.

o There are a number of tasks that have fallen by the wayside:

 Public education on safety and what to do if there is a concern about a facility: 

who to contact, what to do, what to report.

 How to support individuals and community groups when they want to report 

facility issues.

o West, Texas showed us that LEPCs cannot necessarily understand and distribute the 

information received. 

o It’s important to make sure that emergency response agencies receive all of the 

information they need.

o Transparency to the public also needs to be restored.

During the Open Comment Period the Following Participants Spoke:

• Cynthia Hilton, IME, remarked:

o In response to a Webinar participant that spoke about LEPC funding: HAZMAT fees 

received are not restricted. Training grants must be used for training responders in 

transportation events, but other monies can be used at the discretion of the LEPC.

o It would be good to see nationwide metrics on how the money is used.

o Barry Breen, EPA, asked a question: Could Ms. Hilton reiterate the name of the program 

and where the fees go?

o Ms. Hilton responded: The law (49 U.S.C. 5116) states how the funds are received and 

distributed. The funds are paid from shippers and carriers of hazardous materials. The 

funds go to DOT – Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The funds 

are distributed to State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCS) and passed along to 

LEPCs. http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Hazmat/FY2013_H

MEP_Grant_Awards.pdf

• Paul Orum, public citizen, remarked:

o He agrees with the speaker who discussed how all components of safety should be 

included in risk management. He, however, thinks that inherent safety is not 

consistently included in the current regulatory scheme.

o IST can be an effective deregulatory strategy. In a recent report entitled “Preventing 

Toxic Terrorism,” he produced a list of things that would not be done when safer 

technologies are used.

o The biggest missing element from the regulations is that avoided costs and savings are 

not quantified.

• John Gustafson, NRT/EPA retired, remarked:

o In regards to security problems with LEPCs, it depends on how the LEPCs are managed. 

His LEPC has a clearance process for those inquiring about information.

o The EO should explore how to secure information when sharing it.

EO 13650 Page 7

Public Listening Session Webinar Notes

December 16, 2013
o In regards to DOT grants and their usefulness, his LEPC did a commodity flow study and 

provided it to the DOT. If the DOT were able to lay out criteria for funding, it would be 

useful to everyone. Research and guidance can help provide LEPC ideas.

o These are the only source of funds available for LEPCs at this time now that the 

Environmental Project Risk Analysis (EPRA) grants and the Superfund monies are gone.

Closing Comments

• Lisa Long, OSHA, thanked everyone for their participation and thoughtful comments. As more 

material is developed, it will be posted to the 

Website. https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html

and https://www.dhs.gov/topic/chemical-security

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

submitted to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

• Ms. Witt mentioned the interagency representatives will remain online until 6:30 p.m.

EO 13650 Page 8

Public Listening Session Webinar Notes

December 16, 2013
Participant Analysis:

Stakeholder Group 12/16/2013 

Webinar

Chemical Producer 7

Ag Supply 3

Chemical Storage 2

State/Local Regulator 10

First Responder 2

Media 2

Owner/Operator 7

Industry Association 8

Labor Organization 1

Federal Representative 23

Environment/Community 0

Consensus Organization 0

Other: Unk 13

Citizen 0

Education 4

Security 0

Vendor 0

State/Local 1

Tribal 2

Health/Research 1

TOTAL 86

EO 13650 Page 9

Public Listening Session Webinar Notes

December 16, 2013
Executive Order 13650

Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security

December 16, 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 4:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.

Agenda 

Welcome and Overview

Jordan Barab, DoL, Executive Order 13650 Working Group Co-Chair

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor 

Interagency Representatives

Mathy Stanislaus and Barry Breen Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Scott Breor, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Captain Drew Tucci, DHS, United States Coast Guard

Dean Dickinson, Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives (ATF)

Paul Bomgardner, Department of Transportation (DOT)

Karis Gutter, Department of Agriculture 

Lisa Long, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Ground Rules for Public Listening Session 

Sherry Witt, Facilitator

Comments from Listening Session Participants 

Closing Remarks 

Lisa Long, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Adjournment 

Note: For more information on EO 13650, please 

visit https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html.. 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 (Docket No. DHS-2013-0075).