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

Session, Springfield, IL

Date:

Location:  Illinois Emergency Management Agency, 2200 South Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, IL

62703

Introduction and Opening Remarks

 Patrick White, facilitator, 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.

 Purpose: Provide stakeholders with an overview of the Executive Order (EO)

progress and provide an opportunity for the public to provide comments,

feedback, and suggestions

 Mick Hans, Environmental Protection Agency, Chief Region V, Chemical Emergency

Preparedness and Prevention, welcomed participants on behalf of EPA:

 Based in the Superfund program, he handles Emergency Planning and

Community Right‐to‐Know Act (EPCRA) program and the Risk Management

Program (RMP) in the Chicago region

 Representing Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response

 Thanked everyone for attending

 Understands that there are many different opinions and views.  EPA looks

forward to an honest and engaging session.

 Each agency has important role; for example:

 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is focused on facility

security.

 The Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health

1
Administration (OSHA) is focused on worker health & safety.

 EPA’s role is facility safety and the protection of human health and the

environment.

 EPA is committed to improving how we all work with communities and local

governments, especially in underserved communities where access to

information can be challenging.

 EPA Administrator McCarthy has seven themes on which she has focused, two

of which are key to these sessions:

 Making a visible difference in communities across the country

 Taking action on toxics and chemical safety

 The Administrator is taking a strong interest in improving chemical safety.

 EPA takes the Executive Order very seriously and looks forward to progress on

this in the coming months.  

 EPA activities to date include:

 Establishing a pilot program under in Region II using the infrastructure

created under the EPCRA structure. The pilot is:

 Looking how to define high risk, the inspection

prioritization process, and how to best share

information and data with first responders

 Determining methods to improve the content and input

of Tier II filings

 Creating a matrix to identify current and future activities

to improve coordination activities, which will serve as

the foundation of the plan. More on this will be shared

as it develops.

 EPA was also active in preparing the recent Ammonium Nitrate (AN)

advisory.  On August 30, EPA; OSHA; and the Department of

Justice/Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a

chemical advisory that provides information on the hazards of AN

storage, handling, and management.  It provided lessons learned by

2
facility owners and operators, emergency planners, and first responders

from recent incidents, including the explosion in West, TX.  

 To prevent this kind of incident in the future, EPA is preparing to issue a

Request for Information (RFI) which will identify areas of potential

change and adjustment to the RMP Clean Air Act 112(r), such as revising

the list of chemicals; adding new prevention and emergency response

elements; and covering new categories of chemicals, such as reactives

and flammables.

 EPA is also drafting potential options for improving existing risk

management and chemical safety programs, including improving and

sharing successful practices by facilities and local communities.

 Tom Bielema, OSHA, Area Director in Peoria, IL, welcomed participants on behalf of the

Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health Administration:  

 Nick Walters, our Regional Administrator, cannot make it today due to

emergency response activities taking place in the region.

 We value input from all stakeholders.

 Introduced Lisa Long, Director, Office of Engineering Safety at OSHA

 OSHA has experience working with and investigating facilities.

 Lisa Long is leading EO Sub‐working Group 6, which is tasked with modernizing

policies and standards.  Lisa will talk more in depth during her portion of the

meeting to provide specific issues related to policy and standards.

 OSHA published the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard in 1992 in

response to incidents such as the 1984 Bhopal accident and the Formosa Plastics

Factory in 2004.

 The goal of the PSM standards is to minimize employee exposure to

uncontrolled chemical release.

 Process safety is still a problem. We hope that these talks with help to

improve these standards.

 Caitlin Durkovich, DHS, EO Working Group Co‐Chair, Assistant Secretary for

Infrastructure Protection, welcomed participants on behalf of DHS and the EO Working

3
Group:

 Acknowledged the damage and loss of life created from the recent storms and

tornadoes that came through Illinois on Sunday

 Noted the importance of observing the resilience of the communities

and the State in responding to these disasters

 Thanked those participating in the listening session.  Kept remarks brief because

we are here to hear from you.

 Summarized the ongoing work since the EO was signed on August 1, 2013:

 Each of the Federal agencies involved in the EO play an important role.

 DHS brings a security‐centric perspective through voluntary initiatives

and the Chemical‐Facility Anti‐Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulation

and the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) programs.

 CFATS requires high‐risk facilities to adhere to and maintain

performance‐based security standards.

 Acknowledged the three CFATS chemical inspectors in the audience.

They work to assure those security standards are in place at facilities. I

encourage you to meet with them during breaks and get to know them.

 Section 6(b) of the EO directs DHS and other Federal agencies to

collaborate on safety and security issues surrounding ammonium

nitrate.

 In August 2011, DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking which proposes

to implement elements of the Homeland Security Act dealing with ammonium

nitrate, called the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program.

 In 2011, we took public comments on this proposed rule. DHS is

reviewing the comments and is drafting a final rule.

 Because of the deliberative rulemaking process, I will be limited in my

ability to respond to comments regarding the AN Security Program.

However, all input will be considered through submissions to the

docket.

 DHS focuses on building strong voluntary public/private partnerships to ensure

4
that potentially dangerous chemical s are safeguarded; we serve as the sector‐

specific agency for the chemical sector.

 DHS works collaboratively with sector stakeholders and across governments at

the Federal, State and local levels.  

 Have heard the requests for evening sessions; the EO Working Group is looking

to address that requirement.

 Some of the objectives of the EO working group include:

 Improving operational coordination and information sharing

 Modernizing systems and regulations and identifying best practices

 The working group has divided the EO into manageable sections, each of

which is being addressed by a sub‐working group:

 Sections 3 and 4: Improved operational coordination is led by

DHS – U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and EPA.

 Section 5: Information Collection & Sharing is chaired by DHS –

Infrastructure Protection.

 Section 6: Policy Standards & Modernization is chaired by OSHA.

 Section 7: Stakeholder Outreach and Best Practices is chaired by

DHS – Infrastructure Protection.

 In the coming weeks and months, we will communicate status updates to

stakeholders.  We are working to firm up communication to ensure that we can

provide access to this information to everyone on an as‐needed basis.  

 I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to be here today.  I am

privileged to have this opportunity to be here with you, and I look forward to

the discussion.

 Mike Fitzgerald, Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives (ATF), Chicago Field Division, remarked:

 Provided scope and summary of ATF’s involvement

 In response to the EO, ATF has prepared an assessment to State

Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), which assesses the

5
feasibility of sharing data related to the storage of explosives materials.

 ATF has held discussions on this topic and has developed the following

initial recommendations:

 ATF should issue a regulatory amendment for all persons to

share storage information with local fire response teams on an

annual basis.

 ATF should provide information to appropriate SERC personnel

for further dissemination.

 We are anxious to hear what you think ATF can do to assist other government

organizations.

 Mick Hans provided an update on efforts toward improving operational coordination

with State, local, and tribal partners:

 Under section 3(a), the sub‐working group is moving forward with developing a

plan to support stakeholders’ efforts to work together to improve chemical

facility safety and security.

 The sub‐working group developed a matrix of current and future

programs that can support these groups.

 The sub‐working group drafted an outline of a plan and identified

capabilities required for local emergency responders.

 Under sections 3(b) and 3(c), ATF and DHS have assessed their ability to safely

and effectively share information with various emergency planning and

response communities. The assessments focus on how to maximize the flow of

information while providing protection to sensitive data.

 Under section 4(a), an interagency working group has begun the Effective

Chemical Risk Management Project pilot in EPA Region II.

 The pilot is validating best practices and testing methods for interagency

collaboration to improve facility safety and security.

 Working to develop a common understanding among agencies

regulating the region

 Developing a draft operating plan for stakeholder collaboration

6
 Identifying challenges and potential solutions in conducting joint

inspections, including better integration, improved coordination

of data sharing, and cross‐training of inspectors

 The results of the pilot will be used to inform subsequent approaches and

procedures to improve chemical facility safety and security.

 Amy Graydon, Branch Chief, Policy and Rulemaking, DHS Office of Infrastructure

Protection, provided an update on Sub‐working Group 5 efforts on information

collection and sharing.

 There is a 90‐day deliverable on analyzing the current state.

 The sub‐working group has reviewed several areas relevant to information

collection and sharing:

 Information requirements and the data fields that each agency collects

 Database systems and how information is stored

 The use of tools that draw form available information

 What constraints exist on information that would prevent easy sharing,

including caveats such as Chemical‐terrorism Vulnerability Information

(CVI) and Sensitive Security Information (SSI)

 Understanding current requirements of first responders and Federal

partners.

 How agencies are identifying non‐compliant facilities

 Sub‐working group will be looking at some recommendations for the next 90

days to address steps needed to close any identified gaps.

 Define requirements to synchronize and deconflict data collection.

Group is examining how to develop a common taxonomy between

safety and security data.

 We found instances where RMP and CFATS data have been

reported differently, even at the facility name and address level.

 Seeking suggestions on a common taxonomy and creating a

common facility identifier

7
 Working to establish a set of common data fields that can be used to

identify non‐compliant facilities

 Evaluating how we can link the databases of our agency partners

 Evaluating methods for stakeholders to have better access to data and

to understand how to comply with different sets of regulations

 John Monken, Director, Illinois Emergency Management Agency, welcomed the

audience to the State Emergency Operations Center.

 The facility has been activated since noon on Sunday in response to the tornado

outbreak in the region.

 There have been plenty of impacts with companies in the chemical field.

 State had some significant scares relating to these recent storms:

 Metropolic Honeywell facility for nuclear enrichment in Metropolis, IL.

An EF‐3 tornado touched down within 3 miles of this location.

 A tornado touched down at the enrichment facility in Peducah, KY.  It

did not strike any of the stores there.

 An EF‐2 tornado missed the Bravewood nuclear power station by about

600 yards.

 These are relevant examples of the need for complete and accurate information

about the facilities and materials that are within our communities. Having

proper information about chemical stores is essential to understand how

disasters can affect the community.

 Please take advantage of this listening session. It’s a great opportunity for us to

learn from you, the subject matter experts.

 Lisa Long, Director, Office of Engineering Safety, OSHA, remarked on section 6, which

concentrates on policy, regulation, and standards modernization.

 This section of the EO is divided into multiple sections:

 6(a) – Developing options to improve chemical facility safety and

security, which will include agency programs, outreach, and

organization standardization. During the second 90 days, the EO

requires that the Working Group engage stakeholders and discuss their

8
ideas. The Government wants to solicit stakeholder input for the initial

work. A plan will be developed in the final stages of the EO to

implement improvements gleaned from stakeholder listening sessions.

 6(b) – Relates to ammonium nitrate (AN) safety.  There are several

agencies with AN jurisdiction that are working together to develop

options to improve safety and security.  We are interested in hearing

anything anyone has to say concerning AN safety and security.  We

know there are issues with the various grades of AN used, and we are

interested in how safety practices may differ accordingly.  How can this

information about AN be provided to those who need it? These options

will be rolled up into the 6a list.

 6(c) – This section requires OSHA and EPA to review the use of RMP

standard and PSM regulation.  It asks both agencies to consider whether

to expand these programs to cover additional substances and types of

hazards.  We are looking for more input on best practices, as well as

input on hazards and substances that should be included in the

standards. This includes a plan and timelines to expand and support

adjustments to the standards.

 6(d) – Requires DHS to identify a list of chemicals, including poisons and

reactive substances, for consideration in modifying CFATS.

 6(e) – Requires OSHA to issue a Request for Information (RFI) for the

PSM Standard.  The RFI is expected to be issued close to the end of this

month. It is currently in the clearance process. When the RFI is issued, it

will include a set of specific questions.  We ask that commenters

respond to those questions, and those answers will become part of the

docket.

 Amy Graydon, Branch Chief, Policy and Rulemaking, DHS Office of Infrastructure

Protection, provided an update on Section 7 of the EO regarding best practices:

 Working on how to collect best practices.  The EO working group is planning to

have a broad range of best practices to share with the community.  

 Developed a definition of best practices to help frame the scope of information

we are attempting to gather.  Best practices include methods, techniques,

processes, systems, tactics, or approaches that result in successful, productive,

safer, and more secure operations.  These practices have been identified

9
through means that include stakeholder experiences, with results supported by

data, which can range widely in terms of rigor from observations to scientific

studies.  Best practices are voluntary and if instituted can promote effective

safety and security at chemical facilities.

 Appreciate feedback on how to best to gather and share best practices

 There is no specific deliverable timeline; this effort will continue through the

implementation of the Executive Order.

 Patrick White, facilitator, provided the format for the rest of the day:

 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 additional comments, please use the email address:

eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

 The day will be broken up into different topic areas:

 Security

 Safety

 Environmental

 Emergency Response

 General

 At the beginning of each topic, the presenters will be brought to the front.

 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 morning and

afternoon sessions if there is time available.

Security Topic Area

10
 Kevin Runkle, Illinois Chemical and Fertilizer Association (ICFA), provided the following

comments:

 Represents the Agriculture (Ag) retailers, manufactures of fertilizer and

pesticides, distributors, and transporters.

 Ag retail facilities that directly sell to farmers are highly regulated by Federal and

State agencies today. They are regulated by DHS through CFATS, USCG on river

terminals (MTSA), and possibly the pending AN Security Program legislation.

They are also regulated by OSHA, EPA, TSA, Illinois DOT, and the Department of

Transportation (USDOT).

 We have an inspection program in that is headed by the Illinois Department of

Agriculture that inspects every Ag retail facility in the State.

 ICFA believes that the currently regulatory regime is adequate regarding the

handling on anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate.

 ICFA feels that multiple rules among numerous agencies can cause a lot of

confusion and uncertainty. It is important to clarify current regulations and for

Government agencies to communicate with one another concerning overlapping

regulatory requirements.

 The organization is already doing may of the things addressed in the EO. For

example:

 It developed the Anhydrous Ammonia Security Grant Program in 2006.  

This provides up to $200K to Ag retail facilities to update security

infrastructure.

 In conjunction with the Illinois Department of Agriculture, we have a 30‐

year track record for anhydrous ammonia safety training. We have

trained over 800 employees each year, including emergency responders

and employees who handle hazardous materials.  Many employees are

required to receive training no less than every 3 years by USDOT, Illinois

Department of Agriculture, OSHA, and EPA‐RMP.

 Facilities that ship or receive hazardous materials (hazmat) are required

to meet DOT standards.

 ICFA developed an online safety awareness program for growers paid

through a grant from Nutrient Research and Education Council.  It is

11
provided free to those who handle anhydrous ammonia.

 ICFA has worked closely with the Illinois FBI and are partnered with

terrorism task force.

 Over the last 10 years it has provided anhydrous ammonia training for

first responders through the Transportation Community Awareness and

Emergency Response program, which is  a 2‐day hands‐on program for

emergency responders.

 A clarifying question was asked by Ms. Durkovich: You discussed the need for

better communication.  Are there specific examples of better communication?

 Mr. Runkle’s response:  We are the experts in the industry; please come

straight to ICFA.  He has worked with Mike Fitzgerald, ATF and FBI in the

past.  We know our facilities better than anybody.

 Mr. Fitzgerald commented that ICFA has been a great resource for ATF.

 A comment was made by Mr. Hans: He is interested in hearing more about the

Ag Security Grant Program.

 Donald Hayes, Global Technology Manager for Ammonium Nitrate and Nitric Acid, Dyno

Nobel, made the following comments:

 My entire career has been in the AN industry.

 Dyno Nobel is a member of the Institute of the Maker of Explosives (IME).  IME

has provided recommendations for the working group.  I would like to draw

attention to four of them:

 The DHS AN Security Plan would not have prevented West, TX. No one

wants to be the next Wext, Texas; however, we disagree with those who

assert that the rule would have prevented the accident. The program

has an ill‐conceived chain of custody procedures that would have

disastrous consequences for our industry. We urge DHS to issue a

supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to include an exemption

for transportation activities under the authorization of Transportation

Security Administration (TSA) and to register only persons transferring

or receiving ownership of AN. It makes no sense to overlay a redundant

vetting scheme on individuals with access to AN who have already been

determined by ATF to be so unlikely to present a security threat that

12
they are allowed to possess explosives.

 OSHA’s AN rule has proven to be sufficient to prevent accidental AN

detonations.  Occupational Safety and Health Standards regulation 29

CFR 1910.109(i) on explosives and blasting agents is a proven bedrock of

AN safety.  Our organization is unaware of any accidental detonation at

any facility that follows this rule.

 IME supports updating and strengthening this standard by

removing obsolete references, eliminating the option to store

AN in combustible structures, and training emergency

responders not to fight fires involving AN.

 Imposing RMP on AN storage facilities would have not prevented the

West, TX disaster. Given the safety record of AN at facilities that comply

with OSHA’s rules, we believe that OSHA’s rules are sufficient. EPA RMP

is a consequence‐based program that lacks OSHAs perspective, good

housekeeping, and materials management standards.  Simply laying on

more regulations is not the answer to prevent future tragedies like

West, Texas. The wiser course of action is to ensure that existing

regulations are understood and enforced at facilities that are already

regulated.

 Sharing sensitive security information should remain on a need‐to‐know

basis. The West, TX incident has highlighted a critical need to share

information about facilities engaged in chemical activities. The EO

proposed that the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) and the

State Emergency Response Commissions (SERC) serve as the local

conduit for this task.  IME supports direct information sharing with the

emergency response community but not through LEPC and TERC

programs.  The nature of security sensitive information and business

operations sensitivities argue against disclosure to these entities.  

Although all communities were required to establish active and effective

LEPCs in the 1980s, this vision has never been realized.  EPA’s own

assessment of the programs in 2008 shows a patchwork of dysfunctional

LEPCs, especially in communities that rely upon volunteer fire response.  

It would be irresponsible to entrust such sensitive information to these

entities.

 Mr. Fitzgerald asked if he could get a copy of Mr. Hayes’s notes.  

13
 Tim White, Founder, FightforFirstResponderSafety.com blog, provided the following

comments:

 I lost my brother‐in‐law, Kevin Sanders, in the West, TX disaster this past April. I

started this blog as a way to ensure that this kind of tragedy would not happen

again.

 Attended the EPA hearing headed by Barbara Boxer on Ammonium Nitrate (AN)

 Thanked the working group for taking EO a step forward. It’s good to see this

concept is being opened to more than just AN.

 Contacted each State on how AN is monitored. Each State does things

differently, and what is considered a hazardous amount is different for each.  

 A chemist by training and understand that chemicals cannot be fully regulated

out of use.

 What is important is that we know where ammonium nitrate is located.

 Would like to know if it is it feasible to have Radio Frequency Identifiers (RFIDs)

attached to a rail car containing hazardous chemicals to create scanning

capability, allowing tracking of such materials.

 Currently all grades of AN have the same CAS number. It may be important to

update this numbering system and identify different grades based upon the

hazards of each.

 This is about making sure that first responders know what they are walking into.

Part of the lack of knowledge is ignorance, which will require training to correct.

 Currently believes that AN is manufactured in two sites, but it may be at other

sites as well.  Having these items developed through a continuous process

results in larger quantities onsite.  It may be beneficial to have it developed

through a demand‐based process in locations closer to where it is needed.

 Mark Biel, Chemical Industry Council of Illinois (CICI), provided the following comments:

 CICI is a 62‐year old organization with 115 members, 700 facilities, and 800

distribution centers in Illinois.  Members employ nearly 45,000 people at an

average wage of $97,300.  We are the third largest manufacturing sector of the

State and the second largest exporting sector in the State.

14
 Illinois is the fourth largest chemical producing State in the country.

 Most CICI members are members of other trade groups, such as the American

Chemistry Council, the National Association of Chemical Distributors, or the

Society of Chemical Manufactures and Affiliates.  

 These trade groups have robust safety and security programs.

 To be involved with these programs, members have to meet the

standards of those organizations.

 Today we are talking about facilities that are outside the scope of the trade

groups.

 An incident occurred at a facility in Illinois earlier this year that fell

through the oversight cracks.

 Outreach through EPCRA and LEPCs is the best way to understand where these

outliers are located.

 It comes down to the local community knowing what is located in their local

community and communicating it to the proper authorities.

 Information sharing is critical.  EPCRA needs to be revisited to energize the local

LEPCs and get them more involved.

 Regarding the use of Inherently Safer Technologies (IST):

 Facility owners have an inherent interest in keeping a facility safe.

 RMP and CFATS probably accomplish much of what people want

through IST policies.  As a result of CFATS, 3000 companies have

reduced the quantities of chemicals that they maintain onsite to remain

out of the CFATS program.

 One of our members has been working with chlorine for 30 years.  He

has 22 safety steps to follow when a new shipment comes in.  If he is

forced to use another chemical or process, he believes the risk will

increase due to the changes involved.

 A clarifying question was asked by Ms. Durkovich: DHS has spent a lot of time

following West, TX on how to identify outliers. Over the course of the program,

DHS has worked with closely with national trade associations and State

15
associations to communicate CFATS outreach. What are other mechanisms that

can be used for outreach outside of reinvigorating the LEPCs only?

 Mr. Biel’s response:  This is a difficult issue.  Those facilities that do not

file as Tier II are likely the outliers.  Some of the burden should be

placed on local communities (e.g., fire departments) to point out those

facilities that are not complying with data‐sharing regimes. I have a

database of companies that could be members of CICI but have

difficulties reaching them.

 Steffan Nass, Federal Bureau of Investigation Weapons of Mass Destruction

Coordinator, Springfield Division, provided the following comments:

 Illinois has established working groups for both the chemical and agricultural

security industries.

 The Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association is a charter member of

both organizations.  It’s a partnership between private industry, the

Government, and the first responder community.

 Evaluates how to make the production and storage of chemicals safer

 This collaboration has created a clean and quick avenue for the flow of

information back and forth between the stakeholder groups. Including

the FBI allows for intelligence information to flow to the safety and

security groups as well.

 The flow‐back of intelligence information is also important.

 The FBI enjoys the relationship paradigm of the established working

group channels, as opposed to attempting to initiate everything as a

Government program.

 The FBI method of providing data to working groups and trade groups

for further distribution to facilities is a good model.  In some cases,

these groups may include outlier members that are difficult to

otherwise reach.

 A clarifying question was asked by Ms. Durkovich: Is this portal you referenced

E‐Guardian?

 Mr. Nass responded that the intelligence we receive goes to E‐Guardian,

but it is also disseminated to the membership groups through direct

16
communications.  They then distribute it further by Websites and other

communication methods. Many smaller companies do not have the

resources to research all avenues of information, so direct messaging is

more effective.  

 A follow‐up question was asked by Ms. Durkovich: What relationship does the

FBI have with DHS chemical inspectors?

 Mr. Nass’s response:  FBI has a very close relationship. DHS inspectors

are also involved with the working groups.

 Partick White, facilitator, provided timing for a morning break.

Safety Topic Area

 Ms. Durkovich responded to a question raised during the break regarding the EO

deliverable timeline:

 Because of the Government shutdown, the White House provided a 30‐day

extension on all deliverables. The 45‐day deliverable timeline was met, but

additional deadlines for the deliverable have been extended.

 The working group is putting together a two‐page fact sheet on the deliverables.

We anticipate that this will be disseminated to the public in early December.

 Russ Sanders, Central Regional Director, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),

provided the following comments:

 I am a retired fire chief with many years of experience in emergency response

and planning.

 The NFPA publishes numerous documents on hazardous materials for facilities

and first responders.

 Submitted more detailed comments to the email eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

address and encourage the panel to read them.

 The NFPA has several publications that are of interest to the topics discussed

here today.  They include:

 NFPA 400 – Hazardous Materials Code.  This includes references to

several materials, including ammonium nitrate.

 NFPA 472: Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous

17
Materials / Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents

 NFPA 1072: Standard for Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass

Destruction Emergency Response Personnel Professional Qualifications.

This is a professional qualification standard that is open for public input.

 NFPA 1620: Standard for Pre‐Incident Planning.  Appendix D is a field

collection card, or checklist, which may also be helpful.

 The NFPA system allows for comments from the public when adding and

updating codes. Membership is not required.

 All of the documents referenced here are free to view online at www.nfpa.org.

 In closing, NFPA is not suggesting that we need more standards. However, if

current standards need to be improved, input is desired.

 NFPA is pleased to offer assistance in this issues identified regarding data

taxonomy and training.

 Small community fire departments need assistance more than large community

fire departments when it comes to developing safety standards and procedures.

 Mike Routh, Merschman Fertilizer, LLC, provided the following comments:

 Merschman is committed to being responsible stewards of fertilizer products.

 Through our dealer relationships, we communicate best practices.

 We agree with responsible and prudent regulations, but current programs cause

confusion and unnecessary paperwork. Current programs have not been

effective in getting the expected results.

 Endorses the Executive Order but urges that everyone involved needs to make

sure that changes allow our farmers to have a good source and reliable supply of

fertilizer products

 Supports the actions to improve coordination among stakeholders

 The current and proposed regulations provide correct guidance on storing and

handling AN. It’s important to coordinate and share all of this information across

all stakeholders.

 Wishes to see industry continue to have an effective system in place that

18
creates consistency throughout the supply chain

 Frustrated with the varied interpretations of the regulations across different

parts of the Government.

 Actively works with farmers, DOT, USCG, and local authorities to develop

communications regarding safe handling of chemicals such as AN.

 A clarification question was asked by Ms. Durkovich: Could you discuss the

communication system for safe handling?

 Mr. Routh’s response:  The goal is to ensure that all stakeholders in the

supply chain are on the same page from transporters to handlers to

warehouses to dealers. They also make sure that any equipment is

properly placarded.

 Jim Larkin, Illinois Department of Agriculture, provided the following comments:

 Provides anhydrous ammonia inspections of storage tanks and nurse tanks.

 Ensures condition and labeling of the tanks and their valves.

 Ensures proper safety equipment is available and functioning.

 Anything out of compliance is tagged red, flagged for action, and then

re‐inspected.

 Previously provided a list of fertilizer chemicals and their usage across the State

for the year. Use of ammonium nitrate was lower than others.

 Fertilizer is necessary for food production, and Illinois produced 1.9B bushels of

corn last year, which is 15 percent of the U.S. crop.  

 We conducted safety training in the use of anhydrous ammonia.  That program

trains about 800 people per year, and they are required to repeat the training

every 3 years.

 2008 Illinois Fertilizer Act has a purchaser/seller exchange which requires:

 Date of distribution

 Quantity

 License number

19
 Name, address, phone number

 Seller can deny purchase for many reasons

 Records are required to be kept for 2 years

Environmental

 No speakers

Morning Open Comment Section

 Kevin Runkle, Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association, provided the following

comments:

 Many best management practices are already available and were developed by

our group.

 Our fire prevention plan for Ag retail facilities has a letter of endorsement from

the Illinois EPA.

 There is no need to reinvent the wheel, considering that industry has developed

and are using a lot of standards and programs.

 A comment was made by Ms. Durkovich: What the Executive Order is trying to

do is collect and coordinate all the different approaches from across all

stakeholders. We agree that no one wants to reinvent the wheel, and this

listening session is being conducted to collect these best practices.

 Mr. Runkle listed several of the Federal regulations and offered to have

a meeting after the listening sessions were completed to discuss this

issue further.

 Matt Fridley, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, provided the following comments:

 From a general industry standpoint, until OSHA, EPA, and DHS come to a

consensus on the list of chemicals that will be regulated, it makes it difficult to

determine what is in or out for each regulation.  It’s very difficult for the

industry to make proper calculations because Government standards are similar

but different enough to cause confusion.  Additionally, consistent percentages

and threshold weights for chemicals covered by multiple regulatory frameworks

would make implementation easier for facilities.

 A clarifying statement was provided by Ms. Durkovich: Part of our difference in

20
approach comes from our differences in mission, but your observation is

understood.

General Comment Speakers

 David Richards, Vice President of Regulatory Compliance, Barton Solvents, provided the

following comments:

 Barton Solvents is a family‐owned business, celebrating their 75th year in

business.

 Operate bulk storage liquids, warehousing, and transportation

 Members of National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) and adhere to

NACD requirements for codes of management practice

 NACD defines Responsible Distribution® with 13 codes to follow. Barton has

developed processes that help follow these codes. We are audited by

independent third‐party auditor to make sure that these codes and processes

are followed.  This also helps build involvement with community and emergency

responders

 Chemical distributors are heavily regulated by a myriad of agencies. NACD

provides members with checklists to help maintain compliance. Industry

members develop many programs and policies to ensure compliance. Although

challenging, they are important due to the dangerous nature of chemicals.

 Compliance is best achieved when regulatory language is clear and

communicated properly.

 Chemical distributors have serious concerns with proposals for the mandated

use of inherently safer technologies that are not clearly defined and may not be

achievable.  This approach may transfer risk to parties who are less prepared.  

For example, our company maintains inventory of specific products to serve our

customers.  If we are required to reduce our inventories of certain products, we

would be prevented from effectively serving our customers with processes such

as just‐in‐time delivery and custom‐made blends.  If we are required to reduce

the amount or type of materials on a site as part of IST implementation, the

results could be increased transportation distances, shifting inventories, and

adding storage locations, thus transferring risk to other points along the supply

chain and increasing the risk of loading/unloading and in‐transit incidents.

21
 Regulation and enforcement must be consistent.  A major concern about such

measures as IST or multiple general‐duty clauses is that they are subject to

interpretation of a particular inspector or region. We continuously strive to do

the right thing, but this becomes difficult if satisfactory compliance depends on

a facility location or the specific inspector.  This could be further complicated if

other agencies are acting as proxy for one another, resulting in greater

inconsistency in regulatory interpretation.  

 We continuously use the OSHA consultative program on a regular basis. We

have open communication with members of DOT and other agencies, and we

use guidance from the NACD, third parties, and agency Websites to reach

compliance.  We encourage each agency to commit to an aggressive outreach

program rather than focusing on hard enforcement.  Hard enforcement should

be reserved for companies who willingly are out of compliance.

 We encourage you to use associations like NACD when conducting outreach

activities.  

Emergency Response

 No speakers.

General Topic

 A question was asked by Brad Shaull, with CGB Fertilizer: Has the committee made any

decisions yet on changes to ammonium nitrate or its storage or handling?

 Ms. Durkovich responded: This is one of the components of the Executive Order. We

are reviewing options but there has not been a formal recommendation made to the

White House.  We are reviewing several possibilities including the use of existing

regulation.

 Lisa Long stated that this falls under Section 6(a) of the Executive Order. A list of

options needs to be provided over the first 90 days. We anticipate providing the

options to the White House around December 1st. There will be a review period

after that deliverable. The second phase is to engage stakeholders on discussions of

that list. Third phase is to develop the plan based on the information received from

the previous two phases.

 Ms. Durkovich stated that she is limited in what she can discuss regarding the AN

Security Program rulemaking procedure. DHS is looking at a number of policy rules

but are handling that under the rulemaking process. The Executive Order is looking

22
at best practices in handling and storing AN.

Ms. Durkovich provided closing remarks for the morning session:

 Introduced to Kevin Pennell, a protective security advisory (PSA) who works on

voluntary programs for DHS/Office of Infrastructure Protection.  He facilitates suite of

products when it comes to critical infrastructure protection and resilience.  

 Thank you all for being here today to share your thoughts and opinions with us.  This has

all be very valuable as we move forward with deliverables under the Executive Order.

(At this time there were no other participants who wished to speak in the open session.  The

group adjourned for lunch until 1 p.m. CST).

Open Comment Session

 Steve Glidden, Vice President, United Steel Workers (Local 7‐669), provided the

following comments:

 Supports the Executive Order and wishes to thank those who have been working

on it

 Cooperation and cross‐training mentioned by others is very important.  In

Metropolis, IL in 2010, there was an anhydrous ammonia leak.  An investigation

was requested, but the State regulator saw it as a gray area.  The company

found no issue.  A third party auditor was eventually used, and that party found

problems that were resolved, resulting in improvements.  Cooperation is key in

this example.

 From a labor standpoint, we encourage you to talk to the workers and the

people that work with chemicals on a daily basis. The workers will give insights

that the front office and engineers cannot.

 Tim White, FightForFirstResponderSafety.com, provided the following comments:

 In my calls to the Illinois State representatives, I learned about a software

product called Tier II Manager. I was impressed with the functionality that it is

able to deliver.

 Illinois and Michigan have this in place, and they pay for it. Wisconsin

and Minnesota require facilities to fund the program.

23
 The Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) is allowed to see in

real time what facilities have.  It would be great to see this system

available to all emergency response stakeholders.  This information is

then made available to stakeholders including the Illinois Department of

Homeland Security, 911 Call Centers, Regional Hazmat, EMS, Mutual‐Aid

Box Alarm System, fire departments, and police departments.  First

Responders en route to a facility can learn about a facility in real time.

 The same information should be provided to the public with a bit less

specific visibility. It should be limited to chemicals in the community in

general but not necessarily site‐specific data.

 Things that seem expensive today will likely be considered inexpensive in the

future. Things like coated urea are more expensive in part because they are not

in wide use.  Greater use will reduce the costs of providing these safer

alternatives.  There should be a reward for companies that are willing to make

the step to implementing IST.

 Mr. Hans provided comments for EPA Region 5 in reference to the Tier II

Manager application:

 EPA is very familiar with this software product. It is not in use

consistently in many States. For example, Michigan only uses it in about

five counties.

 State‐to‐State resources are a factor in implementation.

 Melissa Hart, Sage Environmental, asked:

 Is EPA considering modernizing the regulation for sections 3.11 and 3.12?

 Mr. Hans’s response: While I cannot speak for EPA HQ, this Executive

Order (focusing on risk management) may point EPA in that direction,

but it’s not necessarily a direct focus at this point in time.

Closing comments provided by Caitlin Durkovich:

 Thank you all for taking the time to be here today.  

 There will be additional public listening sessions around the country. A Federal Register

24
notice went out this morning.

 If you are sending an email to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov we will add you to the

distribution list, so you will begin to receive updates from the working group.

 The purpose of the Executive Order is to evaluate methods to improve coordination and

communication and to review ways that we can modernize our systems, from the

Federal level down through all of the other stakeholder groups.

 Being in the field allows us to hear from everyone about what is working and also

additional information of which we are aware but not fully versed in.

 A follow‐on statement was made by Mr. Hans: We all do some of our networking in

these sessions, and this is also a positive result from these listening sessions. Increased

dialogue is always an improvement.

 A follow‐on statement was made by Mr. Fitzgerald: It is all about communication. The

involvement of ATF in the EO is related to storage magazines.

 ATF will produce data regarding the number, type, and location of storage

magazines for use by local responders.

 ATF will continue to collaborate with stakeholders to include explosives industry

members at the Federal, State, and local levels. This will maximize data

reporting to responders.

 Direct outreach by explosives investigators will continue to utilize their

communication tools and will also use industry trade group communications

(newsletters, forums, meetings, etc.) to increase their outreach.

(The meeting adjourned, but panel members remained onsite and available to listen to

comments from individuals who could not attend earlier in the day but were able to participate

in accordance with the timetable outlined in the Federal Register notice of the meeting.)

 In the afternoon, Terri Treacy, representing the Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club,

provided the following comments:

 Representing local chapter in Springfield, Illinois.

 Asked EPA to use Clean Air Act authority, section 112 (r), to issue new guidance

to have chemical facilities use safer and more cost effective chemicals and

processes

25
 While the incident in West, Texas captured the nation’s attention, most people

don’t know how vulnerable they are to catastrophic chemical disaster. Just

yesterday, LA County had a sulfuric leak that caused 70 people to become ill

with vomiting and inhalation issues.

 Many facilities are located near schools and hospitals.  The risk is especially

pronounced in minority and poor communities, which are located closer to the

chemical facilities.

 There is also a clear and present national security risk.  President Obama has

referred to these facilities as Stationary Weapons of Mass Destruction stationed

around the country.

 Many companies have taken voluntary actions but are moving too slowly. It will

take 40 years to convert existing facilities at this pace.

 Americans deserve and want the Government to do more to prevent

catastrophes; the Government must do more to use safer technologies and

chemicals when it is available.  Companion industries, like the Association of

American Railroads, have called for action in this area as well.  

 August 1, 2013 saw a diverse coalition of groups write a letter to Administrator

McCarthy calling for her to exercise her authority under the Clean Air Act. Sierra

Club was a co‐author of that letter.

 Two former EPA administrators are calling for reform.  Some companies like

Clorox are taking steps to implement safer technologies.

 EPA, in response to Congressman Papayo, has stated that EPA has the existing

authority to institute reform despite being hesitant to do so.

 A clarifying question was asked by Ms. Graydon (on behalf of DHS): How can the

Government measure whether a safer technology is in place?

 Ms. Treacy’s response:  She can take back any questions to the group for

further response.

 A clarifying question was then asked by Jeff Kohn (on behalf of EPA): Are you

adding voice to the national conversation, or are there specific regional

concerns?

 Ms. Treacy responded that she was asked to give comments on behalf

26
of the national organization.

Participant Analysis

Stakeholder Group

11/19/2013

Springfield,

IL

Chemical Producer 5

Ag Supply 8

Chemical Storage 0

State/Local Regulator 5

First Responder 0

Media 2

Owner/Operator 1

Industry Association 2

Labor Organization 1

Federal Representative 4

Environment/Community 3

Consensus Organization 1

27
Other:                                  

Unk 0

Citizen 3

Education 0

Security 0

Vendor 0

State/Local 0

Tribal 0

Health/Research 1

TOTAL 36

Conference Call Attend 50

Registered 37

Attended (In‐Person

& Conf Call) 86

Speakers 44%

Executive	Order	13650

Improving	Chemical	Facility	Safety	and	Security

November 19, 2013 Listening Session

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

Agency (EPA), and the Department of Labor (DoL)

Location: Illinois Emergency Management Agency, 2200 Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, IL  62703

Agenda			

8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Registration

9:00 a.m. – 9:20 a.m. Welcome, Introductions, and Opening Remarks

Patrick White, Facilitator

Jonathon Monken, Illinois Emergency Management Agency

Director

28
Mick Hans, EPA

Chief Region 5, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and

Prevention

Tom Bielema, OSHA

Area Director

Mike Fitgerald, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

Chicago Field Division

Sherrie Giamanco, United State Department of Agriculture

State Executive Director, Illinois Farm Services Agency

9:20 a.m. – 9:40 a.m.      Summary and Progress to Date

Caitlin Durkovich, DHS, Executive Order13650 Working Group Co‐Chair

Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection

9:40 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.     Specific Activity Overview Approaches

Operational Coordination Between Agencies:  Mick Hans, EPA

Information Collection and Sharing:  Amy Graydon, DHS

Policy, Regulations and Standard Modernization:  Lisa Long, OSHA

Best Practices:  Amy Graydon, DHS

10:00 a.m. – 10:05 a.m.    Listening Session Format

Patrick White, Facilitator

10:05 a.m. – 4:20 p.m. Listening Session

Security topics

Safety topics

Emergency response topics

Environmental topics

General topics

4:20 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.     Closing Remarks

  

Caitlin Durkovich, DHS, Executive Order 13650 Working Group Co‐Chair

Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection

Note:  Written comments may be submitted to EO.Chemical@hq.dhs.gov

29