EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 1

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

Executive Order 13650 Public Listening Session, Orlando, FL

Date: December 11, 2013

Location: Valencia College, 8600 Valencia College Lane, Auditorium 150, Orlando, FL 32825

Introduction and Opening Remarks

Kate Finnerty, Moderator, introduced the proceedings:

 Welcomed everyone to the listening session and introduced the panel

 Mentioned future listening sessions and Webinars

 Written comments can be provided to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov. These comments will be 

included in the docket.

 Announcements:

o Please put phones on vibrate.

o Session is being recorded for note-taking purposes.

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

 Purpose: Provide stakeholders with an overview of the Executive Order 13650 (EO) process and

provide an opportunity for the public to comment and give feedback and suggestions.

Jack Massey, Special Agent Supervisor, Florida Department of Law Enforcement:

 Welcomed the group to Orlando 

 Mr. Massey operates the domestic security section for the Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement, which provides service to nine counties in the local Orlando region. 

Terry Harrison, Acting Regional Administrator (Atlanta), Occupational Health and Safety Administration, 

Department of Labor:

 Many people don’t think of this region as one with significant hazardous chemicals; however, 

we have diverse manufacturing and agricultural businesses.

 Previously served as the Assistant Area Director in Jacksonville, Florida at a time when there was 

an explosion involving a chemical called T2 (a fuel additive). Another incident involved MEI, a 

manufacturer of rocket propellants, where an explosion occurred. 

 These dangers are not new to those who are located in the southeast. 

 Thanked the group for being present

Chris Russell, Federal On-scene Coordinator, Environmental Protection Agency:

 Mr. Russell is stationed in Florida.

 Mr. Russell acknowledged that many people were present in the room with whom he has 

worked either in the past or on a frequent basis today. 
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 2

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 Articulated that the listening session is an opportunity for the public to help identify and close 

gaps in chemical safety and security

 Thanked the group for coming

Amy Graydon, Branch Chief, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Department of Homeland Security: 

 DHS is responsible for securing facilities with the highest risk via the Chemical Facility AntiTerrorism Standards (CFATS).

 In this region, DHS has 19 inspectors and a regional director, covering 126 facilities with a 

preliminary or final tier.

 DHS will continue to work with colleagues and industry to improve chemical safety and security.

 Section 6.b addresses working with ammonium nitrate. DHS is in the process of developing the 

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program final rule; therefore, DHS participants today will be limited 

in what they can discuss in this area.

 DHS also has voluntary programs as well. Marty Smith, the local protective security advisor, is 

here today to represent that effort.

 DHS is leading two sub-working groups within the EO. One focuses on information collection 

and sharing. We developed a report and analysis to review how data is collected and shared 

with stakeholders. We have found that there is no common taxonomy between safety and 

security. The Working Group is looking to develop a common taxonomy. We’ve also found the 

Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers are not consistent. Additionally, we are looking for 

ways to uniquely identify chemical facilities.

 DHS is also leading a working group to identify best practices. We are interested in knowing 

where you go to learn about best practices and hearing about the best practices themselves.

Scott Calhoun, Commander, St. Petersburg Sector, United State Coast Guard (USCG):

 We have a history of working with Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies.

 USCG has two roles that to highlight: (1) USCG provides Federal on-scene response 

coordination; (2) USCG provides Federal maritime security coordination, which works closely 

with area maritime security committees. 

Valentina (Tina) Close, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & 

Explosives (ATF):

 One role of ATF is to enforce laws regarding explosives, mainly regarding explosives commerce. 

 ATF has a cadre of investigators who conduct inspections. They have approximately 11,000 

licensees in the U.S. at this time.

 ATF is interested in working in partnership with industry to improve industry safety and security. 

That is why we are here today.

John Heneghan, Regional Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, Department of Transportation:
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 3

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 Our organization helps to ensure that chemical companies are shipping chemicals correctly.

 While we don’t have a role in fixed facility safety and security, we do oversee all areas of 

transportation. 

Lisa Long, Director, Office of Engineering Safety, Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), 

Department of Labor:

 I want to thank you all for coming. I know we may have many different views and perspectives 

on chemical facility safety, and I look forward to an honest and engaging listening session.

 We have now hosted three listening sessions in Texas City, Washington, D.C., and, just last 

week, Springfield, IL. We have also hosted one Webinar.

 We have valued your feedback and look forward to continuing the conversation with additional 

listening sessions, both in person and via Webinar. 

 On August 1st of this year, President Obama signed an Executive order to improve the safety 

and security of chemical facilities and to reduce the risks of hazardous chemicals to workers and 

communities.

 Each of our Federal agencies has an important role under the Executive order. For example, 

DHS is primarily focused on security at chemical facilities, and OSHA is principally focused on 

worker health and safety at these facilities. EPA’s role is facility safety and the protection of 

human health and the environment in chemical facility and in the communities located near 

chemical facilities. 

 We are all committed to improving the way facilities and local governments relay and share 

information and to improving the way we all work with communities, especially underserved 

ones where access to information is challenged. 

 We look forward to hearing from as many stakeholders as possible at various stages in our 

process. The listening sessions are very important to me because your feedback is important to 

this process.

 The main objective of the working group is to improve the way that all levels of government and 

the private sector work together to help improve the safety and security of chemical facilities 

and surrounding communities. 

 That means improving everything from operational coordination and information sharing to 

modernizing regulations and identifying best practices. 

 To tackle such a broad range of topics, the Interagency Working Group divided the work and 

deliverables into manageable sections corresponding to the sections in the Executive order. 

 Each of these sections is being addressed by a sub-working group, and I would like to take a few 

minutes to discuss the various areas of responsibility and progress each group has made.

 To best coordinate this effort, we have established four sub-working groups.

 The first group focuses on sections 3 and 4 of the Executive order, improving operational and 

Federal coordination. These sections are co-chaired by the Environmental Protection Agency 

and DHS (the Coast Guard).
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 4

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

o We are currently developing a plan to improve the way we—regulators, emergency 

responders, chemical facility owners and operators, and communities—work together. 

o Sections 3 and 4 also addresses how best to share explosive materials storage data and 

Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) data.

o An important effort to highlight here is the pilot program established in EPA’s Region 2. 

The pilot is working as a sub-working group under the Region 2 Regional Response Team 

(RRT) and is using the infrastructure created by the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know (EPCRA) Act.

o The pilot is defining high-risk and inspection prioritization among the agencies, 

identifying how best to share information and data between agencies and first 

responders and determining methods for improving access and content of chemical 

inventory Tier II filings.

o The sub-working group has created a matrix to identify current and future activities to 

improve coordination, which will serve as a foundation for the plan.

o Pilot participants recently held their own listening session on November 19th.

 Section 5 is being chaired by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Infrastructure 

Protection and is tasked with examining how to improve the way we collect and disseminate 

chemical facility information. The sub-working group is looking at information collection and 

sharing among the various agencies, as well as among State and local entities. We are in the 

process of producing a proposal for a coordinated, flexible data-sharing process to track 

regulated chemical facility data.

 Section 6, chaired by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, primarily focuses on 

policy and standards modernization.

o This section is developing proposals to improve the storage, handling, and sale of 

ammonium nitrate; is reviewing a list of chemicals to include in the CFATS Chemicals of 

Interest list; and is improving the chemical hazards covered by the Risk Management 

Program and the Process Safety Management Standard.

o Section 6 also addresses improving existing risk management practices.

o On December 3, OSHA issued a Request for Information (RFI). 

o In the RFI, OSHA seeks input on its Process Safety Management standard; on potential 

updates to its Explosives and Blasting Agents, Flammable Liquids and Spray Finishing 

standards; and on changes to Process Safety Management (PSM) enforcement policies. 

o The agency also asks for information and data on specific rulemaking and policy options 

and on the workplace hazards that these rules and policies address. OSHA will use the 

information received in response to this RFI to determine which actions, if any, it may 

take. 

o The RFI was posted on December 3rd and was published in the Federal Register on 

Monday, December 9. The RFI public comment period will last for 90 days. 

 Section 7 is also being chaired by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of 

Infrastructure Protection. Section 7 involves stakeholder outreach and best practices and will 

address challenges and develop solutions to be implemented in the final stages of the EO.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 5

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 We have been hard at work putting together a schedule and organizing public listening sessions 

across the country to ensure that our working group will receive a broad range of feedback from 

communities and stakeholders.

 Today’s listening session continues an important dialogue among communities and stakeholders 

in how we can help make chemical facilities and our hometowns safer places.

 One of our main goals in engaging stakeholders is to identify, develop, and put into place best 

practices.

 On August 30 of this year, EPA; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); and 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a chemical advisory that 

provides information on the hazards of ammonium nitrate (AN) storage, handling, and 

management. 

 The advisory provides lessons learned for facility owners and operators, emergency planners,

and first responders from recent incidents, including the explosion in West, Texas, to help 

prevent AN incidents.

 In the coming weeks and months, each of our sections will have progressed on their subject area 

deliverables. Communicating status updates to stakeholders from the broad set of interest areas 

is a priority for us.

 As many of you know, the EO called for a number of 90-day deliverables that were delayed up to 

30 days due to the Government shutdown. The working group has met its deadline for the first 

set of deliverables.

 However, some of the 90-day deliverables were draft internal deliberative documents and will 

not be available for public review. One document that will be released to the public is under EO

section 6(a): Options for Improved Chemical Facility Safety and Security. This document is 

currently being reviewed by the White House, and we look forward to your feedback once it is 

released.

 As I mentioned before, we are holding public listening sessions via Webinar and across the 

country to ensure that we hear from communities and stakeholders. Your thoughts and input 

are invaluable to our team.

The moderator provided a set of ground rules and asked presenters to come forward to provide 

comments:

 The goal is to hear from a diverse set of opinions and a range of suggestions. Consensus is not 

expected at this session.

 If anyone wishes to provide further comment, please use the email address at 

eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov.

 Each speaker will state their name, organization, and stakeholder group.

 Each speaker will be limited to 5 minutes.

 After each presentation, the panel may ask clarifying questions.

 Open comment periods will be provided at the end of the session if there is time available.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 6

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

John Brulia, Director of Safety and Compliance, Austin Powder Company, provided the following 

comments:

 In the past few years, I’ve participated in programs regarding the use of AN, which require a 

security clearance.

 Our company is the oldest explosives company in the world, and we are one of the largest. 

 We are an active member of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME).

 We provided manpower and equipment to remake IME’s safety video on responding to highway 

incidents involving commercial explosives. This video is designed to help first responders 

become aware of hazards and risks associated with incidents along highways.

 We support IME’s previous comments to the working group.

 It is imperative that first responders have the proper training and accurate information to 

respond to incidents. As an IME member, we embrace the belief that we have an obligation and 

incentive to ensure that emergency responders have this knowledge.

 ATF only requires a one-time notification to local emergency responders (per 27 CFR 555.201). 

We would support a periodic reporting requirement and encourage this to be a high priority for 

the working group.

 In the wake of West, Texas, our company reached out to more than 100 of our local responders, 

most of whom are volunteers. 

 We believe that ATF registration should suffice for meeting the requirements of the DHS 

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program (ANSP). We disagree with those who assert that the ANSP 

would have prevented the tragedy in West, Texas. It would not have prevented that event, and 

it will not enhance security at facilities that are already registered with the ATF explosives 

program.

 We strongly urge DHS to issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to include an 

exception for the registration of facilities engaged in commerce of ammonium nitrate. 

 We have a very strong program in place under ATF today. All of our personnel are vetted, 

including through fingerprinting and background checks. The ATF issues a notice of clearance 

for those who meet the criteria. This notice is used by facilities to determine who will be on 

their list of authorized persons and who will represent their company in ordering and receiving 

explosives.

 DHS and ATF should share the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). It is difficult to understand 

why we cannot agree on this. I would encourage this to be a high priority.

 Ms. Long asked a clarifying question: We’ve heard from others that it is often difficult to engage 

local first responders. Do you have any examples of how you have been able to do that? 

o Mr. Brulia’s responded: Tenacity. These are our neighbors, many of whom have regular 

jobs. We reach out directly to these volunteer organizations. We get involved with 

their training and often attend their meetings. We have had a very good response from 

the volunteers. We ensure that they have the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and 

Emergency Response Guide information for each hazardous item they may encounter.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 7

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

Mary Hartney, President, Florida Fertilizer & Agrichemical Association (FFAA), Lakeland, Florida,

provided the following comments:

 FFAA’s mission is to promote the responsible use of plant nutrients and crop protection 

products in Florida. Our members are fertilizer and crop protection manufacturers, dealers, and 

distributors. 

 Our organization is your conduit to organizations in Florida that operate similarly to the one in 

West, Texas.

 I would like to describe some of the things we have done regarding the use of AN for agricultural 

uses.

 Following the event in Oklahoma City, we worked with the ATF to promote two voluntary AN 

handling programs: Be Secure and Be Aware for America. 

 Following 9/11, our State association worked with numerous farm organizations, the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the University of Florida to create the 

Florida Agriculture Security Task Force. We called it FAST. We promoted FAST security tips on 

AN storage and transportation.

 In the 2000s, our State had problems with methamphetamines. We worked with the 

Department of Agriculture on a grant program to install locks on anhydrous ammonia nurse 

tanks, so the contents could not be stolen for use in meth production. 

 We have been fortunate that ATF has been so willing to work with us.

 We’ve been in contact with DHS agents. We’ve had presentations on the CFATS program and 

work well together to promote compliance. 

 Following the tragic events of April 17th, we worked with the Agriculture Retailers Association 

and The Fertilizer Institute to distribute an online compliance assessment tool for agriculture 

retail facilities. This tool gives retailers the ability to support continual improvement with our 

compliance efforts. 

 My colleague, Kevin Runkel, provided comments in Springfield, IL regarding many of the Federal 

and State programs under which we operate. This includes programs from DHS, EPA, OSHA, the 

Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Labor, the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA), and the United States Coast Guard.

 This past summer, we’ve been participating in local emergency planning councils. We provided 

safety presentations at three of these and at the state emergency response commission. We’ve 

been invited to hold a panel discussion at the 2014 Florida Emergency Planning Association

meeting.

 We encourage you to focus on promoting compliance and enforcement of existing regulation. 

FFAA supports risk-based tiered approaches to risk-based safety and security measures. 

 We oppose recommendations that would hold retail operations to OSHA’s PSM, but would like 

to work with you to identify best practices in these locations.

 We are committed to honoring the memories of those who have died in West, Texas, and we 

look forward to working with you to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 8

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 A clarifying question was asked by Ms. Graydon: Do you have suggestions for how to reach 

companies that are not members of your associations? 

o Ms. Hartney’s responded: FFAA enjoys a great working relationship with our regulatory 

agency, the Florida State Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. They 

license and register fertilizer companies in Florida. While a company may not be a 

member of our association, they are required to register with this State regulatory 

agency. 

Matthew Marshall, Florida Association of HazMat Responders, provided the following comments:

 I am here today representing the E-Plan users group. Additionally, I am also a first responder 

and the chairperson of the Florida Association of Hazmat Responders.

 I am also a member of our local emergency planning commission, and I sit on a sub-committee 

of State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) Training Task Force.

 Thank you for holding these listening sessions. For me, it’s all about safety. 

 I believe the EO is a great opportunity for Federal, State, local, and tribal groups to come 

together to create an open dialogue and share information. 

 Twenty-seven years ago, the Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA ) became law. 

Since that time, it has gone through some changes. We also need to look at fire codes. Both are 

used to assess the safety and security of our local jurisdictions. Since EPCRA was put into law, 

there have been unfunded mandates. In Florida, we charge a fee to file Tier II reports. The 

proceeds are then used by State and local agencies to complete their side of regulatory 

requirements.

 Fire Marshalls are a great group to get to know, as they are out in the field inspecting outlier 

facilities. 

 Local first responders (e.g., police, fire, emergency managers) need the information already 

known to Federal and State agencies. We can use a single database, called E-Plan. This product 

is in use in 39 States. This year, 34 States have submitted their Tier II information for just over 

300,000 facility sites. 

 The product is Internet accessible. It provides access to both Tier II filings and MSDS sheets for 

specific chemicals onsite.

 In this past year, 55,000 facilities have entered their information directly into E-Plan. Part of 

this process includes collecting email addresses.

 The 11 States that are not submitting data into E-Plan may be doing so for a variety of reasons. 

Some may be concerned about how the information will be used, including by Federal and State 

agencies.

 I am presenting you today with 21 letters of support, including from EPA Region 4; Department 

of Defense; NORAD; Secret Service; DHS; National Emergency Management Association; the 

States of New York, Louisiana, Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, New 

Mexico, Alabama, and Washington;, Collin County LEPC (Texas); Duchess County LEPC (New 

York); Erie County (New York); Raleigh (North Carolina), and Lexington (South Carolina). 
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 9

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 You asked about how to make this plan work. E-Plan costs money, but we can use funds 

collected by EPA through fines. Today EPA collects on average $130M annually, of which around

$44M is returned to locals. Why don’t we use the remaining $80M to fund our LEPCs and State 

Emergency Response Commissions, rather than returning it to the Federal Government general 

fund?

 A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Heneghan: The pipeline hazardous materials safety 

administration writes the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG). We also have a hazmat 

registration program that requires all shippers of hazardous materials to register with us. That 

money is then sent to the communities to train the LEPCs. The E-Plan information you provided 

looks good, and I will be passing this information to my supervisors. Are you a member of the 

cooperative hazardous materials enforcement? There is a conference coming up in Florida. Are 

you familiar with it? 

o Mr. Marshall’s responded: He was not familiar with the conference. He was advised by 

Mr. Heneghan to reach out to them to present this information to them.

 Mr. Marshall provided an additional comment that the funding returned to the locals from DOT 

and that Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grant monies are limited to 

activities involving transportation emergencies. The Tier II filings are not related to 

transportation facilities. It is therefore difficult to use this funding to train people in industry at 

a facility. The funding and training for transportation emergencies is in place, but we do not 

have permission to use this or other funding for facility training.

 A clarifying question was asked by Ms. Graydon: You mentioned that you were a member of the 

SERC training task force. Do you have any examples of things that worked well involving training 

throughout the State? If there was a best practice that could be shared, that would be helpful.

o Mr. Marshall responded: There needs to be a three-tier approach: (1) attending 

conferences to get the word out; (2) training users in their localities; and (3) offering 

Internet-based training to reach those who cannot be reached otherwise.

Jeaneanne Gettle, Acting Director, Air Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Region IV,

Environmental Protection Agency, was introduced as a member of the panel.

Frank Raike, Lieutenant, Orange County Fire Rescue Department, provided the following comments:

 I am here to share what is not working: inspections. Fire inspections are usually conducted by 

staff assigned to fire prevention. Historically, these are senior, seasoned firefighters. The model 

of the fire service is based on individual inspectors who in the later stages of their career, closer 

to retirement. In recent years, we’ve hired more civilians and younger individuals, but they are 

demonstrating a lack of knowledge and skill, especially when it comes to specialty areas like 

chemistry, gas, and hazardous materials. This issue is shown in both volunteer and career 

members.

 While there is a lot of training available, it can be very difficult to reach out to these facilities. 

The facilities themselves are often hiring people who are not well trained.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 10

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 The Chemical Safety Board does a good job getting information out about failures. We often 

hear about an accident that happened because someone didn’t appreciate the hazards involved.

 We have facilities that fire inspectors looked at, but they are only reviewed by that individual at 

that single point in time.

 As an example, there was a major fuel distribution company in our area that began adding 

alcohol to their gasoline, as was mandated by the Government. That facility did not take this 

change into account regarding its fire suppression system and later found out that its system 

was not effective against alcohol. 

 We need to reach out further and find ways to improve the current system of inspections,

perhaps by assigning inspectors who specialize in a specific area or by establishing a 

coordination group between EPA and other agencies to find one inspector who can look at a 

facility from multiple perspectives.

 We have one inspector in central Florida. He has 69 facilities on the E-Plan, which consumes his 

entire year. His workload is a constant struggle for him.

 A clarifying question was asked by Ms. Gettle: You spoke about training. Do you have any 

suggestions for us on what is a more effective way to reach out to those who need to be 

reached in training?

o Lt. Raike responded: The statutes of the Environmental Protection Agency Code of 

Federal Regulations are very effective if they are read and understood. He indicated 

that the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) has an excellent library, but most of the 

fire inspectors will only work off NFPA-1 (Fire Code) and NFPA-101 (Life Safety Code). 

He has run into problems with people improperly imposing regulations either due to 

lack of context or understanding.

Gary Vogen, Vice President, Sales and Marketing, Yara North America, provided the following 

comments: 

 Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

 We are a global manufacture of nitrogen-based products, which includes ammonium nitrate, 

anhydrous ammonia, and calcium nitrate.

 We deliver solutions for sustainable agriculture and the environment and have a presence in 

over 150 countries around the world.

 We have committed ourselves to responsible stewardship of the fertilizers we produce. We 

invest in making our products more stable in normal application.

 We agree with the need for responsible and prudent regulations. The regulatory programs 

represented here today are inconsistent and create confusion and unnecessary paperwork.

 Current programs have not resulted in effective implementation or consistency in monitoring 

and enforcement.

 We urge you to include changes that ensure that farmers and growers have access to the 

fertilizer products they need to continue to be the most efficient producers in the world. 

 We support action here through this dialogue to improve coordination among the agencies. 
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 11

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 Our greatest challenge is in understanding how to interpret rules and how to properly attain 

regulatory compliance. 

 We need to ensure that farmers’ interests are protected. 

 We are particularly interested in the regulation of AN, specifically the Ammonium Nitrate 

Security Program. We have done a lot of work over the past several years since the 

announcement of the proposed rulemaking with the Department of Homeland Security by 

feeding information and attempting to answer questions. Our objective is to make this program 

more viable and beneficial to industry. We believe that current and proposed AN legislation 

already provides correct guidance, but there is some confusion on the specifics of that guidance. 

 It is important to coordinate the exchange of information among OSHA, EPA , and others and to 

ensure that information is interpreted consistently by all parties.

 We support the finalization of the AN Security Program, putting into place an effective solution. 

However, the program needs to be user-friendly without restricting access for growers and 

farmers.

 Ms. Graydon made a clarifying statement: Thank you for your comments. We wanted you to 

know that the USDA is a member of the working group but was not able to be here today.

Gina Hawkins, Government Consulting Services, provided the following comments:

 I have 32 years of solid and hazardous waste management and disaster recovery, some of which 

was as a first responder. I’ve also served as a policy analyst and as a faculty member. My 

comments today will represent these different areas of experience.

 I was a former research associate for the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Management. I am a current faculty member for the Solid Waste Association of North America. 

I teach safety and materials processing facilities. I served for 17 years in disaster recovery for 

the City of Gainesville as the Hazardous Committee Chair. 

 I appreciate the EO making it clear that existing Federal and State laws are far from adequate in 

protecting our communities.

 In the past, we have geared our work towards managing and mitigating risk. Today, we have an 

opportunity to go further by preventing risk.

 In Florida, there are 22 chemical facilities that each put more than 100,000 people at risk. 

Florida is fourth in the nation. 

 There are more than 70 facilities that have switched to safe chemical processes that have zero 

catastrophic risk. Only two of those put more than 100,000 people at risk. These examples 

could easily be put in place at other facilities.

 EPA requires that chemical plans report their worst-case accident scenario. As a result, we know 

that there are 473 facilities that pose a risk to more than 100,000 people. Together, these 

facilities more than 100M people at risk. 

 Clorox has eliminated the poisonous gas risk by converting to a safer alternative. We believe 

that every facility that poses such a hazard can be converted to safer alternatives and should be 

required to do so.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 12

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 Conversion triggered by these new requirements would create more than 8,000 new jobs. 

 The EPA has the authority to issue new requirements in the form of regulations, guidance, and 

rules that could render future disasters improbable. EPA can eliminate unnecessary preventable 

disaster risks. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to comment here today.

Judah Prero, Assistant General Counsel, American Chemistry Council (ACC), provided the following 

comments:

 The EO notes that measures can be taken by agencies using existing regulations. ACC agrees 

that there are opportunities to enhance safety and security throughout industry. We’ve offered 

numerous recommendations over the past few weeks to this working group on how this can be 

achieved, addressing the fundamental issues while meeting the objectives of the EO. However, 

we are concerned that the working group has chosen to focus on proposals that address one 

small piece of the EO. We believe that the misplaced attention to proposals relating to safer 

alternatives will distract from work in other areas of the EO that still need to be addressed and 

will lead to unnecessary and duplicative regulatory obligations that will not enhance safety and 

security. 

 Existing regulations focus the attention of owners and operators on operating safe and secure 

facilities. As examples, consider the following regulations: OSHA PSM, EPA RMP, DOT Hazmat 

Regulations, and DHS CFATS. All of these programs as they exist today require operators to take 

a hard look at the operations and do what it takes to make them safer and more secure. Explicit 

safer alternative mandates aren’t needed. The goal of arriving at safety is implicit and sitespecific, which should be done by developing either a process hazard analysis or a risk 

management plan.

 Operators need to take a holistic approach when addressing risk at a facility. These various 

programs and requirements needs to be addressed in concert so that the overall safety and 

security profile for employees, the environment, and the community can be maintained at the 

highest level possible while allowing facilities to function. No single agency has the legal 

authority to perform this task, nor is one capable of doing so.

 There are numerous challenges and pitfalls to a regulatory mandate to evaluate safer 

alternatives. For one, what does safety mean? What factors go into the decision process to 

determine safety? If EPA requires an analysis for safer alternatives under RMP, the focus would 

need to be on safety relative to accidents and incident in the ambient air, as that is the extent of 

EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act. This is complicated and nearly impossible to import 

into a regulatory context; it’s not simply low-hanging fruit to enhance safety and security.

 The New Jersey experience highlights the complexities of such a program. Under New Jersey’s 

Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA), regulated facilities are required to perform an 

inherently safer technology review. New Jersey uses a non-traditional definition of inherently 

safer technology (IST) that focuses on strategies already considered by best management 

practices: OSHA PSM standards and EPA RMP rule. As such, many companies claim to identify 
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 13

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

or implement IST controls that really aren’t bona-fide IST measures but rather are measures 

already identified or implemented under other programs. 

 The TCPA program’s goal is to not specifically require the reporting of risks before and after IST 

implementation. There is no specific accounting for risk shifted up stream, offsite, or anywhere 

along the supply chain. There is no way to quantify risk or to define what lesser risk is. There is 

no way to qualitatively determine if the program has resulted in any real risk reduction across 

the board. In light of existing Federal and industry programs, it is difficult to envision the benefit 

of adopting this program at the Federal level. 

 Government clearly has a role in addressing security and safety, but the EO states that its role 

needs to be coordinated with industry, which has the primary responsibility of ensuring the 

safety and security of its employees and neighbors. It is possible to reach these safety goals 

through companies’ continual devotion to management and control of hazards by adhering to 

existing regulations and industry best practices. Adopting a safer process does not represent 

the only way to achieve the desired level of safety. 

 We encourage the working group to focus on facilities that may have previously been off the 

radar and that truly need help with security and safety measures. This is the goal of the EO, 

which doesn’t necessarily involve developing new regulatory programs that will create 

additional complexity without providing any quantifiable benefit. 

Gary Weiss, State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), provided the following comments:

 I am the chairman of our LEPC and also serve as an adjunct professor at Columbia Southern 

University, teaching fire and OSHA programs.

 I would like to discuss the use of E-Plan. The SERC supports the use of E-Plan and has submitted 

a letter to the working group. It is essential that we find ways to fund it. 

 This program is an essential tool for first responders. I’d like to give you two real-life examples:

o In Miami-Dade, someone called in an ammonia smell in a community. No facility had 

reported an emergency. Using E-Plan, first responders were able to identify facilities 

with ammonia and were able to identify the facility with the issue before it could 

provide any external notifications. That is an excellent example of how E-Plan enhances 

safety for our community and our emergency responders.

o In particular, regarding hurricanes it’s important to know where facilities exist and their

onsite quantities of particular chemicals. It can serve as an in valuable resource to first 

responders.

 E-Plan can serve as a single repository for everyone. Let’s take a regional response example: 

first responders coming into localities from neighboring jurisdictions can get information via EPlan that they would not otherwise have access to.

 Many emergency response vehicles have computers with Internet access, which would give 

them access to E-Plan while on the road.

 Funding is needed to keep this product going. It is highly valued by the emergency response 

community. 
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 14

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 There was a question asked earlier by someone regarding the training of first responders. Our 

LEPC receives funding for training first responders. We use these funds to provide training,

including classes, exercises, and drills, to these individuals.

Laura Pravs, Greenpeace, provided the following comments:

 As a Florida resident, I am alarmed that there are 22 facilities in my State that each put more 

than 100,000 people at risk.

 When I started researching for this hearing, I felt all sorts of emotions: rage, blame, anger, fear. 

What it really comes down to is not making this about blame or opposition. When we do that, 

we don’t listen to one another. I want to hear you, and I want you to hear me in return. I want 

to take this time to see what our common ground is. 

 Right now in this room, no matter who you are, you are sitting in a dangerous zone of a chlorine 

storage facility. Brenntag is a potential weapon of mass destruction and a pre-positioned target 

for an unprecedented disaster. In the event of an accidental explosion, leak, or intentional 

terrorist attack, we are currently inside the risk area, along with 300,000 other people. This 

would lead to a painful death, with intense burning of our skin and eyes, followed by a choking 

sensation due to pulmonary edema, ultimately resulting in suffocation. 

 If facilities like Brenntag would switch to other safer processes, such as replacing chlorine with 

bleach made onsite with salt and electricity, it would significantly reduce the threat to our 

residents. For some reason, this facility and others across the country haven’t done this. 

Perhaps this is an issue of cost, miscalculation of the risks, or an over-focused fear of “big 

brother” telling them how to run their business. It doesn’t matter. This isn’t an issue of blame;

it’s about preventing accidents. 

 Small incidents happen at chemical facilities every day. There have been hundreds of fatalities 

at chemical plants in the last decade or so. In this year alone, there have been close to a dozen 

significant incidents, of which the disaster in West, Texas is well-known. 

 This hearing is about ensuring that this kind of disaster, or something worse like the Bhopal 

tragedy, cannot happen again. It doesn’t matter whether a company voluntarily uses IST or is 

forced to institute changes based on regulation. The result is the important thing.

 Decades of industry delay have shown that many companies are not making changes to safer 

alternatives. This leaves us with little choice but to see the voluntary choice as a stall tactic 

rather than as proving that they have the community’s welfare in mind. 

Michael Witten, Crop Production Services, Loveland, Colorado, provided the following comments:

 Our organization distributes a large amount of fertilizer.

 The fertilizer industry employs about 250K jobs, with about four reciprocal jobs created for each 

of those positions. 

 I worked as a firefighter for 37 years. I am very knowledgeable about Tier II forms. It would be 

helpful if we could pare down the Tier II forms to only the pertinent information that first 

responders need to know: location, chemical, and quantity.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 15

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 The firefighters in West, Texas had the Tier II filings for the facility there. However, it is difficult 

to know if they understood the information they were given.

 Crop Production Services has started an outreach program for emergency responders 

throughout the country. We are 97 percent complete in having visits from local first responders 

at all of our 1,400 facilities. At these visits, we discussed the makeup of the facility and the 

chemicals stored within. 

 All industries that house hazardous chemicals need to educate first responders about the 

chemicals that are in use at the facility.

 A clarifying question was asked by Ms. Graydon: In terms of working with first responders, what 

was the key to success? If we are asking each company to reach out individually, how can we 

maximize first responders’ time?

o Mr. Witten responded: It is doubtful that we could develop a process that would be 

superior to having first responders visit a site in-person. First responders would need to 

visit somewhere in the order of 15–20 facilities in a year; that does not appear to be an 

unreasonable demand.

Jason Taylor, Orange County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), provided the following 

comments:

 In the State of Florida, we have a program called Hazards Analysis in which local emergency 

responders evaluate half of all section 302 chemical facilities in their county. In Florida, all 67 

counties participate in this program.

 The Executive order appears to focus on chemical facilities but does not address transportation 

issues, such as railway, waterway, and highway. 

 In Florida, HMEP project funds move from U.S. DOT to the States, which filter funding to the 

LEPCs. Those funds are specifically for transportation-related items. Previously, there were 

outreach items for section 302 outreach and chemical facility outreach, but since they don’t 

have a transportation-related function, they have been removed from the list of activities 

performed by the LEPC. 

 In Florida, we have 11 LEPCs, which varies significantly from other States. Our program has had 

regional LEPCs since 1986. 

 In some areas of the country, there are councils of governments performing the LEPC functions, 

which may be an alternative on a national scale.

 Some areas have LEPCs on a smaller level. In Michigan, there are LEPCs for each of the counties 

and even for some of the municipalities.

 I would like to encourage the EPA to better collaborate with facilities to encourage 

supplemental and environmental projects. Training funds could go back into local first 

responders to close the gaps in funding we are seeing throughout the State.

 We have not yet seen the transition from MSDS to safety data sheets (SDSs) or other universal 

numbering systems in place.

 Why does the EO focus on AN? Obviously, it is because of the incident in West, Texas, but why 

wouldn’t we consider other more hazardous substances as well?
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 16

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 A clarifying comment was made by Lisa Long: Even though the Executive order speaks directly to 

ammonium nitrate, we are also considering other chemicals that are similarly hazardous.

 A clarifying comment was made by Commander Calhoun: You made a very good point about the 

focus of the facility vis-a-vis transportation. Can you give me a more specific example of your 

transportation concerns?

o Mr. Taylor responded: Specifically, there is a fuel farm in Port Canaveral for petroleumbased products. Once these come off the ships, they are not reported by that facility. 

They are held for later distribution. This is a holding area for these chemicals in large 

quantities that could be susceptible to attack or transportation-related incidents. 

Another example would be in rail yards, where chemicals are kept in large quantities. In 

some of these instances, models indicate that 60–90K people would be affected by an 

incident there.

Closing remarks were provided by Lisa Long:

 Thank you all for coming out this morning and speaking with us. 

 The address for the Website is: osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html. We encourage 

you to visit this site to learn more about our efforts under the EO.

[Lunch Break]

Eric Hamilton, Florida Petroleum Council (a division of the American Petroleum Institute), provided the 

following comments:

 When looking at regulations, we hope that they will be both feasible and enforceable. They 

should reflect lessons learned combined with performance data. 

 Regulation should be risk-based and supported by sound science and data. It should be based 

upon root cause analysis of inadequate performance to ensure that changes address true 

regulatory deficiencies. It should not pursue the mythical notion of zero-risk.

 The current OSHA PSM standard and EPA RMP have worked well to support the process safety,

and we believe that is important for the oil and natural gas industry.

 Industry standards play an important role. The American Petroleum Institute (API) standards 

are adopted in State regulations over 3,300 times and at the Federal level over 350 times. Many 

times this is because these standards are approved by the American Standards Institute. When 

we develop standards, we base them upon data and other technical support information.

 We hold conferences and publish journals to disseminate best practices to members of industry.

 We recommend sharing best practices to pursue industry implementation of safer practices.

 There are four different categories of risk: inherent, passive, active, and procedural. We need to 

emphasize mitigating risk in every category.

 A clarifying question was asked by Ms. Long: You spoke to how regulations should be based 

upon lessons learned and performance data. Do you have examples of performance data or 

know where it is available?
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 17

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

o Mr. Hamilton responded: I don’t have that right now, but I can get back to you with that. 

We sit on the State Emergency Response Commission. There is a lot of sharing of 

information at that level as well.

Mike Whitten, Crop Production Services, provided the following comments:

 We wanted to share our thoughts on what would improve operational coordination, specifically 

outreach communication. Many first responders are volunteer organizations that do not have a 

lot of resources. If our industry partners can work directly with their local first responders, it will 

give those responders a better understanding of the facility and hazards involved.

 We need additional coordination between State and local agencies. Our organization operates 

facilities in remote areas. We often see other facilities that may have ammonium nitrate onsite 

but appear to have poor security. Our organization takes great interest in securing hazardous 

materials, but others may not. Increased coordination may help to identify these previously 

unknown facilities.

 Our organization no longer handles ammonium nitrate. This decision was made in response to 

the West, Texas incident.

 Smaller community fire departments don’t have experience in hazardous materials and may not 

know what to do. We would like to reach out more to local emergency responders to train 

them and ensure that they are informed, as their actions (or inaction) could actually worsen a

situation. 

 Federal and State agencies should work together to coordinate inspections and to crossreference their databases. 

 In the past few years, the EPA has asked us to report non-hazardous chemicals, such as potash

and phosphate. If that information is then shared with emergency responders, it may confuse 

them as to which chemicals are truly hazardous and which have minimal hazards – in the case of 

potash. 

 Ms. Long asked a clarifying question: You mentioned facilities in remote areas that may have 

unsecured ammonium nitrate. Do you have a recommendation on how to identify them 

specifically?

o Mr. Whitten responded: You may need to reach out to large manufacturers to 

determine where the product is being distributed.

 Lisa Long asked a clarifying question: You mentioned coordination between agencies for 

inspections. Do you have any specific ideas on how to best coordinate inspections at the 

Federal level?

o Mr. Whitten responded: I’ll give you an example. We may have a Tier II inspection, 

followed a few weeks later by a DHS inspector, we then may also then see an EPA 

inspector, and then an OSHA inspector. By coordinating among agencies, perhaps we 

can lessen the number of inspections while still achieving the same goals of compliance.

Dwayne Mundy, Director of Public Safety & Regulatory Compliance, North Central Florida Regional 

Planning Council (RPC), provided the following comments:
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 18

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

 We have found that regional LEPCs work very well. Our area of Florida covers 7,000 square 

miles and has nearly 500,000 people. It has major railways and interstate highways.

 When we started, we had only one hazmat team. We’ve expanded that to regional hazmat 

teams.

 In Florida, there are 11 LEPCs. We have found that by having counties work together, hazmat 

response is really a regional matter.

 We support the use of E-Plan for Tier II submittals. We input that information into Cameo to 

complete our hazards analysis.

 Meeting directly with the facilities in our communities is valuable to us.

 Ammonium nitrate is used in our community, which has a significant amount of agriculture. It is 

disappointing that ammonium nitrate is not covered as a Tier II filing; it appears to have a retail 

exemption. We have attempted to address that lack of data through site visits. 

 Lots of facilities sell anhydrous ammonia, which count as section 302 facilities and are included 

in our hazards analysis. 

 Florida is trying to expand the way we deal with our hazards analysis. Data is maintained 

electronically, and we work to ensure that information is available to those who need it.

 Most of the changes to improve safety will need to come from the State or local level.

 We work to ensure that when an emergency responder and industry worker meet for the first 

time, it is not during an emergency.

 We conduct a “Hazardous Materials Awareness Week” annually, giving people an opportunity to 

get together. During our seminars, we will typically host topics on hazardous materials in the 

morning and on hazardous waste in the afternoon.

 Ms. Graydon asked a clarifying question: Is the Hazardous Materials Week statewide or specific 

to your regional LEPC?

o Mr. Mundy responded: It is a statewide program, and I would be happy to share some 

of our materials from this past Hazardous Materials Week.

 Ms. Gettle asked a clarifying question: You indicated that changes will come at the local level.

What can the Federal Government do to facilitate this?

o Mr. Munday responded: Funding of the LEPC is the most important. We like the way 

that the risk management program is operated in Florida. The LEPCs participate with 

people who conduct the State audits. LEPCs are also required to coordinate with the 

RPC sites.

Paul Wothersoon, Chief of Technological Hazards, State of Florida, Department of Emergency 

Management, provided the following comments: 

 Florida is very proactive. We have over 10,000 facilities with reportable Tier II chemicals. We 

also operate a risk management program. 

 Many of the best practices you are seeking are already in practice in this area.

 Our inspectors invite local LEPCs, fire departments, and DHS CFATS inspectors to participate. 

They have an opportunity to walk through the facility together. Industry complains about the 
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 19

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

costs involved in hosting inspections from various stakeholders. This approach is intended to 

address those concerns.

 Our SERC is very active. First responders, LEPC members, and industry representatives comprise 

its training task force. This task force reviews how people are certified and trained. 

 We could improve our coordination with OSHA. Florida is leading the way in this area. There is 

more work to be done, but we are doing more than many States.

 E-Plan is a great program and costs less than $1M to operate annually. That seems like a 

tremendous value for a very small investment.

 Mr. Heneghan asked a clarifying question: I didn’t hear you discussing transportation. The 

coordinated inspections you referenced spoke to the idea of working together, but DOT 

inspectors have a very different perspective. DOT inspectors are focused on aspects of 

transportation, so they would be looking at such details as container types. Would you be open 

to having DOT inspectors participate along with the others?

o Mr. Wothersoon responded: We would absolutely be interested in having you 

participate with us.

Closing Comments – Lisa Long

 Thank you all for coming today and for the comments you shared.

 The Website address is here on the board: osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html

o The site has a few documents, including the OSHA RFI, available. We will continue to 

post content to this site.

[The group adjourned for an evening dinner break]

Evening session began with a brief introduction by Kate Finnerty, the moderator. A call was made for 

anyone who would like to come forward to present comments. No speakers presented themselves at 

the evening session.
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 20

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

Executive Order 13650 - Listening Session Analysis To Date

Stakeholder Group

12/11/2013 

Orlando, FL

Total 

Stakeholder 

Emgagement by 

Group

Chemical Producer 6 6

Ag Supply 3 3

Chemical Storage 0 0

State/Local Regulator 4 4

First Responder 3 3

Media 1 1

Owner/Operator 1 1

Industry Association 3 3

Labor Organization 0 0

Federal Representative 7 7

Environment/Community 1 1

Consensus Organization 4 4

Other: 

Unk 1 1

Citizen 1 1

Education 0 0

Security 0 0

Vendor 0 0

State/Local 4 4

Tribal 0 0

Health/Research 0 0

TOTAL 39 39

Conference Call Attend 72 72

Registered 49 49

Attended (In-Person 

& Conf Call) 111 111

Speakers 31%
EO 13650 Public Listening Session Page 21

December11, 2013

Orlando, FL

Executive Order 13650

Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security

December 11, 2013 Listening Session 

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

and the Department of Labor (DoL)

Public Listening Session 9:00 a.m. – 7:30 p.m.

Agenda 

8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Registration

9:00 a.m. – 10:20 a.m. Welcome and Overview

Jack Massey, Florida Department of Law Enforcement

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

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Interagency Representative: 

Teresa Harrison, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Amy Graydon, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Commander Scott Calhoun, DHS, United States Coast Guard (USCG)

Valentina Close, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

 Bryan Rogers, Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

10:20 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Ground Rules for Public Listening Session 

Kate Finnerty, Facilitator

10:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Comments from Listening Session Participants 

6:00 p.m. – 7:20 p.m. Continuation of Listening Session

7:20 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. Closing Remarks 

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

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

7:30 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.