Executive Order 13650 Public Listening Session, DC

Date: November 15 , 2013

Location: GSA Building

– 7 th & D Streets ; Washington, DC 20004
Introduction and Opening Remarks

Jack Eisenhauer , Moderator :

• Welcome to the Public Listening Session for Executive Order (EO) 13650 : Chemical Facility Safety and Security

.
• This is the second in a series of sessions that will be held at different locations and dates.

• I will be your moderator for today.

• Those on the phone are in listening

- mode only.

• Anyone , including those in the room, is welcome to submit written comments. Please send comments to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

.
• This session will be recorded only for the purposes of note

- taking.

• We are here to provid e an opportunity for each of you to provide comments regarding the contents of the EO

. Mathy Stanislaus , Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Response, Environmental Protection Agency , EO Tri

- Chair , commented :

• Our intention is to use today and upcoming listening sessions to inform the EO Working Group of the various options for improving chemical plant safety.

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is committed to improving facility safety and human health a round chemical facilities, as well as improving inter

- agency collaboration.

• To date, we have several accomplishments that we would like to bring your attention :
o We have started a p ilot program bringing together S tate and local responders in the New York/N ew Jersey area. The pilot is d efining high risk and inspection prioritization among agencies and is identifying best practices for sharing information among agencies and first responders

. o After the event in West, Texas, the EPA issued an update to the Am monium Nitrate Advisory. On August 30 th , EPA, working with the Occupational Safety & Health Administration ( OSHA ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ) , delivered an advisory that provides lessons learned by facility operators a nd first responders from recent incidents involving ammonium nitrate.

o EPA is drafting a Request for Information (RFI) and will be e valuating feedback from stakeholders regarding the Risk Management Program

. o EPA is also developing a set of high

- level options for improving chemical safety based upon collaboration with our agency partners and feedback from stakeholders.

• We are looking forward to listening and learning from you. EO Public Listening Session Page 1 Washington, DC November 15, 2013Caitlin Durkovich, Assistant Secr etary, Infrastructure Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), EO Tri

- Chair , remarked :

• Thank you for coming today. We appreciate you taking the time to speak with us on ways to improve chemical security safety and security.

• November is Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency Month.

• While EPA and the Department of Labor (DOL) /OSHA have important roles in chemical safety, DHS brings a unique security

- specific focus on the chemical industry.

• The DHS Chemical Facility Anti

- Terrorism Standards ( CFATS ) identifies and regulates high

- risk chemical facilities to ensure that they have security measures in place to reduce risks associated with these chemicals

. DHS requires facilities to maintain performance

- based security standards to address the ir facilities’ unique risks.

• Due to the Ammonium Nitrate Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DHS is limited in its ability to comment on the regulation of ammonium nitrate (AN) at this time.
Marvin Richardson, Deputy Assistant Director , Enforcement Progra ms and Services , ATF , commented :

• ATF is pleased to be here today with our F ederal partners

.
• Our role with respect to this Executive o rder is somewhat limited to areas dealing specifically with explosives.

• We are working with other F ederal, S tate , and local agencies to coordinate responses for efficiency.

• We look forward to hearing your input regarding issues that we can improve upon.
Captain Drew Tucci , Chief of Office of Ports and Facilities , DHS/ United States Coast Guard (USCG) , remarked :

• Thank you for taking the time out of your day to share your expertise and advice.

• The USGC has a long history of chemical safety and security as related to waterfront areas. For example, we have been overseeing explosive loading operations on the waterfront sinc e World War I.

• The Maritime Transportation Security Act ( MTSA ) sets security standards for waterfront facilities. The USCG oversees the administration of that program.

Bill Hoffman , Program & Analysis Officer, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U

. S

. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) , remarked :

• USDA assist s rural communities in prospering so that they are self

- sustaining , repopulating, and economically thriving. While enhancing our water resources, we ensure that our national forests and private w orking lands are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change. We help America promote agriculture production and biotechnology exports as America works to increase its food security. Finally, we ensure that our N ation’s children have acc ess to

EO Public Listening Session Page 2 Washington, DC November 15, 2013safe, nutritious , and balanced meals. To fulfill this mission, we need the help and collaboration of our stakeholders, both within and outside the G overnment.

• Many of our partners are involved in emergency response. Although that may not come to mind when you think of the USDA, please keep in mind that we are involved in firefighting through the forest service.

• We also ha ve a large environmental conservation mission in the USDA.
Jordan Barab, Deputy Assistant Secre tary , DOL/OSHA , remarked :

• Thank you for participating today. This is the second listening session we have held regarding this EO

.
• We understand that there are different views and perspectives relating to chemical security. We welcome those differences an d look forward to hearing from all of you.

• In the wake of the disaster in West, Texas, the President signed th is EO to review and improve the security of chemical facilities throughout the country. The goal of this w orking g roup is to improve the way that all stakeholders work together to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities and surrounding communities

.
• DHS is primarily focused on the security of chemical facilities. OSHA is primarily focused on worker health and safety. EPA ’ s role is fac ility safety and the protection of human health in and around these chemical facilities.

• Provided a n overview o f the EO sub

- working groups:

o Section 3 & 4: Involves operational and F ederal coordination. Chaired by the EPA and DHS/USGC, the group is currently formulating a plan to improve how F ederal agencies work together and with other stakeholders to improve regulatory efficiencies. The group is also evaluating methods for sharing i nformation, specifically explosive material storage data and CFATS data. A pilot program was established in EPA R egion II and is working to define high risk and inspection prioritization , to determine how best to share information between agencies and firs t responders , and to determine methods for improving access to and the content of Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Tier II filings.

o Section 5: Chaired by DHS , Office of Infrastructure Protection, this group is tasked with examinin g the ways that we collect and disseminate chemical facility information. It is looking at possible improvements to information collection , as well as methods for sharing that information with F ederal, S tate, and local partners. It is in the process of dev eloping a proposal for a coordinated and flexible data

- sharing process.

o Section 6: Chaired by the OSHA , this group is primarily focused on policy issues and moderniz ing standards and regulations. The working group is developing options for improving risk m anagement practices through agency programs, private sector initiatives, G overnment guidance, outreach, standards, and regulations. A document describing the options will be issued soon. A 3

- month comment period will follow to gather feedback based on the proposed operations. Section 6 also requires OSHA to

EO Public Listening Session Page 3 Washington, DC November 15, 2013issues a RFI regarding the modernization of the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard.

o Section 7: Chaired by DHS, Office of Infrastructure Protection, this group addresses stakeholder outreach.

• We have been organizing public listening sessions to ensure that the w orking g roup receives a broad range of feedback from our stakeholders.

• On August 30 th , EPA, OSHA, and ATF issued a chemical advisory regarding the handling and storage of a mmonium n itrat e. The advisory provides lessons learned for facility owners/operators, emergency planners, and first responders based upon recent incidents (including the West, Texas incident ). As part of the effort of this Executive o rder, we will also be seeking commen ts to improve this advisory information.

• We cannot forget that the E xecutive O rder is in response to a recent tragedy. We cannot forget the loss of life ; we must keep this tragedy in our thoughts as we move forward with our efforts

. W e are sobered by the tragedy in West, Texas that brought us together today, but we are united in our efforts to improve the safety of our chemical facilities.

The moderator provided an overview of the ground rules for those who would comment:

• This is a listening session. The p urpose is to hea r a diverse set of opinions. We are not here to debate. We are not seeking consensus.

• Speakers are asked to limit their comments to those covered in the Executive O rder.

• Specific suggestions will be the most helpful.

• We hope to allow every one an opportunity to speak today. However, if that is not possible, we encourage stakeholders to submit written comments.

• Presenters are asked to state their name, organization, and stakeholder group.

• Each presenter will have a maximum of 5 minutes each.

• Before the end of each session, we will open the floor for comments to anyone, including those who did not previously register to speak.

• We have a timekeeper here today. When you have less than 1 minute remaining, he will hold up a yellow card. When time i s up, he will hold up a red card.
Topic I : Improving Operational Coordination with Federal, State, Local , and Tribal Partners
Barry Breen , Deputy Assistant Administrator, Solid Waste & Emergency Response, EPA, provided a brief overview of Sections 3 & 4:

• We are grateful to DHS/ USGC for co

- leading this effort with us.

• This group is focused on S ections 3 & 4 of the E xecutive O rder. We would like your thoughts on this entire area, which includes coordination among agencies at all levels.

• We are interested in your advice for what would be included in a unified F ederal approach , such

as standard operating procedures and best practices . Additionally, it would be helpful to hear ways in which we can support S tate, local, and tribal governme nts, such as through te chnical assistance. EO Public Listening Session Page 4 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• We would like to hear about ways that we can foster coordination and joint collaborative planning efforts, where agencies support one another to improve efficiency.
Ed Chapman, BNSF Railway/ Transportation, Community Awareness, and Emergency Response ( TRANSCAER ) , provided the following comments:

• I am the Directo r of Hazardous Materials with BNSF R ailway in Texas.

• I am also the c urrent chairman of TRANSCAER

.
• The best way to improve safety is to engage everyone to reach the common goal

.
• TRANSCAER was founded in 1986 as a voluntary national outreach to help communities and first responders prepare for transportation emergencies.

• Our members are volunteers from the chemical manufacturing sector, distribution, transportation, emergency response, and various G overnment agencies.

• Our mission is threefold : ( 1 ) p romote the safe transport of hazardous materials ; ( 2 ) h elp communities prep are for emergency response situations ; and ( 3 ) aid in preparing plans and exercises

.
• The Executive O rder really underscores the importance of everyone coming together to prevent and mitigate emergency incidents.

• TRANSCAER offers free training , both classro om and hands

- on. We utilize subject matter experts to provide the instruction. We prepare community emergency responders with plans and exercises.

• Perhaps the most important thing we provide is an opportunity for stakeholders to meet and work together b efore an incident occurs.

• TRANSCAER developed an anhydrous ammonia training program that includes transportation packages and information on its chemical properties and emergency incident response . Since 2011, there have been more than 8,000 emergency resp onders trained in the program. We have received more than $50,000 in grants, which have helped us provide this training.

• We recently trained over 100 responders in Waco, Texas, a nearby neighbor of West.

• Mr. Stanislaus asked a c larifying question : Is your organization focused primarily on transportation , or are you focused on other areas as well?

o Mr. Chapman responded : We are focused primarily on the transportation area

. However, we do participate in training inside the fenceline as well.

• A c larifying question was asked by Mr. Barab : Are you working with unions, Local Emergency Planning Committees ( LEPCs ) , or others?

o Mr. Chapman responded : The answer is all of the above. We reach out to all stakeholders.
Jennifer Gibson, Vice President of Regu latory Affairs, National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) , provided the following comments:

• As the trade association representing the nation’s chemical distribution industry, NACD offers a unique and important perspective on chemical safety. EO Public Listening Session Page 5 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• Mem bers of the NACD process, for mulate, blend, repackage, warehouse, transport , and market chemicals for a customer base of 750,000

.
• NACD members operate in all 50 S tates through 1,700 facilities.

• Most NACD members are small businesses. A typical member is pr ivately owned, with about $26M in annual sales, three facilities , and 28 employees. More than 40% of our members are family

- owned businesses.

• To be a member of NACD, a member must make a commitment to responsible distribution. Each member must follow the R esponsible Distribution program, which consists of 13 codes of management practice to protect the environment, promote the health and safety of employees and community members, enhance product stewardship, and ensure the security of their facilities and pr oducts. Each member must undergo third

- party verification of policies and procedures for their adherence to the codes, which include:

o Risk Management

o Carrier Selection

o Handling and Storage

o Emergency Response & Public Preparedness

o Product Storage

o Security

• Owners and managers of NACD companies have a personal stake in the safety of their facilities.

• Chemical distributors are highly regulated by several agencies

. We have created a 14

- page regulatory checklist for NACD members. While compliance is challenging, our members understand its necessity.

• There are three points that should be considered for effective chemical regulation:

o Regulations must be clear

. o They must be consistent

. o Agencies should adopt a culture of compliance assistance rather than simply stric t enforcement.

• NACD has serious concerns about the potential mandate for the use o f inherently safer technologies , especially if those mandates are not clearly defined, may not be achievable, and/or could transfer risk elsewhere along the supply chain.

• Reg ulations and enforcement must be consistent. Often, regulatory compliance is subject to the judgment of an individual inspector.

• While NACD understands the needs for sharing information among G overnment agencies, we are concerned about the prospect of having one agency acting as a proxy for another. This could lead to additional inconsistency in interpreting the various regulations.

• Compliance a ssistance and o utreach is important. Most agencie s, including OSHA, EPA, and DHS , have excellent materials available. However, it can be difficult to find these materials unless you know what you are looking for. NACD can assist with this effort, taking time to educate our members about available inform ation and resources.

• A c larifying q uestion was asked by Mr. Barab : You mentioned that many of your members are small businesses. OSHA has a consultation service specifically for small businesses , which can EO Public Listening Session Page 6 Washington, DC November 15, 2013help clarify regulations and achieve compliance

. C an you recommend what we should do with companies that are not members of your organization? Specifically, how do we reach out to them?

o Ms. Gibson answered : One thing NACD does is seek out non

- members. I’m not sure if it would be appropriate for the G overn ment to direct facilities to the NACD, but we recognize this as a problem.

• A c larifying q uestion was asked by Ms. Durkovich : Our inspector cadre spends a lot of time helping facilities to understand CFATS. Sometimes the hardest part is to identify compan ies that are not NACD members. How do we reach companies that are not part of your membership?

o Ms. Gibson answered: We will do everything we can to help in this area.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus : Can you speak a little more about the development of your codes and the process for verification?

o Ms. Gibson answered : We began developing our codes in 1991, with third

- party verification starting in 1998. Each facility is required to write and implement its own policies and procedures. We hir e verification firms. We are about to start our fifth cycle. Every one of our members will receive a visit from one of our third

- party verifiers to

ensure compliance with our codes

. Occasionally, some deficiencies are found, and the facility is given a per iod to achieve compliance. However, i f there is a significant failure, a company is asked to leave the membership. We had one member in this position last year.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus: It’s my understanding that you hire the third

party verifiers.

o Ms. Gibson replied: Yes, we hire third

- party verifiers, but companies do not get to choose which one visits their particular facility.
Michael Jacoby, a p rivate c itizen , provided the following comments:

• I am addressing the working group today from the perspective of protecting first responders and the public.

• I would like to ask the working group a simple question. You’ll hear a lot from industry and other stakeholders today, but w hen was the last time yo u looked at the data in your systems to see if it is accurate or correct?

• I’ve found a flaw in the EPCRA law that will take the President ’ s Executive O rder or an act of Congress to bring EPCRA up

- to

- date with the standards.

• T he q uality a ssurance/ q uality c o ntrol (QA/QC) for EPCRA is based on an honor system.

• While stakeholders may be doing their own data verification, no one is looking at the big picture.

• When I ask a member of C ongress or industry about the last time they verified the data, I never

rece ive a clear answer.

• When it comes to data, one thing is paramount, especially to first responders: l ocation, l ocation, l ocation. First responders need to know where the hazards exist.

EO Public Listening Session Page 7 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• A c larifying question was asked by Ms. Durkovich : Thank you for your c omments. We have certainly been aware of the need for better location data quality. You refer to working with an agency on this issue; w hat agency have you been working with?

o Mr. Jacoby replied : EPA. They have the ability to look at audited names, as well as to look forward and backward. We are cleaning up data that has been provided; you have to get people at the S tate level to verify that information is correct. Environmental justice has been crying about this for years. Any information submitted to the F ederal G overnment should be subject to a QA/QC check.

• A c larifying statement was made by Mr. Stanislaus: From what I hear, you’re saying that we need to have a consistent application of QA/QC. I think we can do that without any legal amendments

. o Mr. Jacob y responded: It’s possible. I was challenged by a lawmaker to throw up my imagination and put a proposal together. Yes, that involves Congress, and with the way things are going in Congress, I doubt that anything will ever get done. I’ve put years of effor ts into this , and one of the goals was to bring together organizational groups as we have here today . If a 7 th grade student can figure out what’s wrong with this picture, I’m sure we can, and we can start the process. It’s an education thing. We’ve got to get the word out.
Lee Anderson, Blue

- Green Alliance, Labor Union Coalition , provided the following comments:

• My o rganization is a coalition of 10 national labor unions , including those of the steel workers, auto workers, transit workers, service employees , teachers, communications workers, utility workers, food and commercial workers, sheet metal workers , and pipe fitters.

• I am here today to offer our comments , as workplace health and safety is one of our core areas of work , tied to one of our central orga nizing principals: good jobs that are safe for workers are healthy for the environment.

• I’d like to e mphasize the importance of the EO and the process in implement ing the orde r. The G overnment is still capab le of addressing issues of workplace safety , and we welcome their efforts in this area.

• We see many opportunities for regulatory improvement and harmonization among agencies within the F ederal G overnment.

• Perhaps the single largest opportunity w e see is the use of inherently safer technologies. We

s aw this in California Governor Jerry Brown’s interagency task force report that require d refineries to institute inherently safer systems to the greatest extent feasible. The EPA has the authority to issue a similar requirement under the Clean Air Act.

• Th ere are several opportunities for improving the collecting, storing , and sharing of facility information.

• Developing a single definition for what constitutes a high

- hazard facility would be helpful. Additionally, it would be helpful to have an expanded and uniform definition of “ hazardous substances ” in Risk Management Programs and Process Safety Management requirements.

EO Public Listening Session Page 8 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• There is an opportunity to improve chemical disaster response procedures, including through contingency plans and training. The Worker Training and Education Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has a long tradition of providing this type of training , and it s hould be called upon to do this work.

• A ccess to information could be improved by , developing and maintain ing a publicly accessible joint working group and S tate inspection database that encompasses all high

- hazard facilities using a common definition and showing results of the inspections conducted. This could be used as a targeting database to identify potentially non

- compliant facilities.

• We see an opportunity for evaluating and identifying most electronic methods for identifying high

- hazard chemical inventories across all F ederal agencies.

• To m eaningfully shar e information and engag e with communities , we need an open process to solicit comments from stakeholders , and that process should include evening hours on weekdays and on weekends.

• From personal experience in a small rural farming community , f armers there k now where

a mmonium n itrate is and where it is stored. But there are people living in towns who do not understand what a mmonium n itrate is or how it is stored

.
• A c larifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus: You reference d the refinery task force in Cali fornia

– was that a recommendation?

o Mr. Anderson responded : As far as I know, that was a recommendation.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus: So are you saying that you would place the burden of data analysis upon the facility?

o Mr. Anderson responded: Yes, analysis of inherently safer systems would be evaluated by t he facility.

Anna Fen d l e y, United Steelworkers Union, provided the following comments:

• I am here representing the 850,000 workers of the United Steelworkers Union, which includes the majority of workers in the U.S. chemical industry.

• The EO could be a majo r step forward in improving chemical worker safety.

• Our union has seen far too many incidents involving injury and death, and I could spend days discussing them.

• Inherently safer technologies (IST) and chemical processes are the most effective way to prevent disasters. Earlier this year, our union issued a report regarding the replacement of hydrofluoric acid in r efineries. We would encourage you to look at our report and other similar reports regarding the use of IST.

• Operational c oordination in the f ield could be improved . Inspections for each agency are triggered by different criteria. We believe that agencies c ould coordinate join t inspections, utilize cross
- train ing , shar e best practices for facility inspections, and use a common definition for high

- risk and high

- hazard chemical facilities.

• Agencies should see w orkers as agents for safety and not as a security risk

.
• Voluntary efforts by industry are simply not enough.
EO Public Listening Session Page 9 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• We are pleased to hear that OSHA and EPA are moving forward with RFIs regarding updates to Process Safety Management ( PSM ) and Risk Management Program ( RMP ) . We are looking forward to being invol ved in those efforts.

• We need more opportunities to engage during this process, especially at convenient times for workers , such as evenings.

• A c larifying q uestion was asked by Mr. Barab : You can have inherently safer technology in a single facility. Somet imes, the use of IST can create other hazards, such as through more frequent transport of lesser hazard chemicals. How do we mitigate that?

o Ms. Fendly replied : A holistic process is needed to evaluate these issues on a case

- by

case basis.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus: How can IST use be implemented?

o Ms. Fendly replied : We would recommend developing a comprehensive process that involves workers who understand the process. We w ould be happy to follow

- up with

more specifics.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus: You mentioned that the National Insitute of Health ( NIH ) has a grantee training program that you can use. How exactly would you use the grantee training?

o Ms. Fendly replied : The grantee trainin g program has been in existence for decades. They have a number of grantees that do excellent training on hazardous operations and emergency response. They are already doing training in the field for workers and community groups. Simply plugging in with th at agency and working with the grantees for additions would be very straightforward and doable.

John Gu s tafson , U

. S

. National Response Team (retired), gave a handout to each member of the panel and provided the following comments:

• I have been i nvolved in the chemical industry since 1977, when I served as Special Assistant and Acting Chief of Staff to Doug Costle, the EPA Administrator. This was during the time of Love Canal , the major oil spill in Europe, and other incidents.

• I w ant to help serve as a voi ce of emergency responders , contingency planners , and investigators.

• I would like to direct your attention to a document in your packets called “What S hould B e D one?” Please look at the solutions section. There are approximately 50 ideas there that should be considered.

• In 1995, the National Response Team went through a process of revitalization. The agencies represented here are part of the 16 agency organizations on the N ational R esponse T eam. What we are doing here now is very similar and represents the beginning of revitalization in chemical safety.

• Many agencies have not been able to support adequate training due to sequestration. Agencies should focus on coordination to address this concern. There needs to be better coordination and collaboration.

EO Public Listening Session Page 10 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• This is a F ederal, S tate, and local process. The S tates have a large stake in this process. In West, Texas, the LEPC structure was not a robust as other areas.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Barab: You briefly mentioned f unding training. Can you elaborate on that?

o Mr. Gu s t a fson responded: The N ational R esponse S ystem used to have four meetings per year, but it was dropped to two per year before eventually being suspended due to budget concerns. The on
- scene coordinators all need training, but the funding for that has evaporated. Attorneys need to be educated on how the Oil Trust Fund works.

• A comment was made by Mr. Stanislaus: I will look at this document and will perhaps reach back to you. Bill Erny, S enior Director at the American Chemistry Coun cil (ACC) , provided the following comments:

• In addition to my comments today, I will submit a written document for inclusion in the docket.

• Nothing is more important to our members than the safety and security of our communities and facilities.

• ACC stands ready to offer the expertise of our membership. We have valuable programs and broad experi e n c e that can assist in this area.

• ACC

- member companies have reduced worker reportable injury and illness rates by 79% since 1990 , currently at a rate five times lowe r than the U

. S

. manufacturing sector as a whole

.
• ACC has been tracking process safety incidents and has seen a reduction of more than 58% in this area as well.

• Our members are committed to the ACC R esponsible C are ® P rogram.

o One difference in this program versus others is that compliance is mandatory for membership in the ACC.

o A core element of the program is to work with first responders.

• ACC operates CHEMTREC, which provides millions of safety data sheets and can provide real

time emergency response guida nce to first responders when needed.

• ACC also sponsors TRANSCA E R. Combined, these efforts paint a picture of an organization committed to safety and security.

• Increased leveraging of existing programs, such as ResponsibleCare ® , is important.

• We encourage t he G overnment to dedicate more resources for outreach , education, and training.

• ACC agrees that sharing chemical information and emergency response plans with those who have a legitimate need to know is critical. ACC objects to releasing sensitive security information or confidential business information to the general public.

• ACC believes that existing regulations offer the necessary incentives required for using inherently safer technologies . Additional regulation in this area is not feasible.

• A clarifyin g question was asked by Mr. Barab: How do you reconcile the need for more stringent ResponsibleCare ® requirements when compared to the possibility of losing members with more strict requirements?
EO Public Listening Session Page 11 Washington, DC November 15, 2013o Mr. Erny responded : We have a pretty robust process, which i ncludes the use of a steering committee. We have not consider ed if changes to the program will affect membership numbers. We recently added several new components to the program, including a new process safety code.

o Mr. Erny also added: Agencies r ecogniz ing programs like ResponsibleCare ® in regulations would go a long way toward getting other organizations to adopt these best practices. We spend a lot of time reaching out to other organizations and participate in outreach efforts that go beyond our existi ng membership. I don’t know how to get everyone, but we can collectively work together to do a better job.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Hoffman : You mentioned a regulatory recognition of these programs. Is there a model you can point to that has been successful in this area?

o Mr. Erny responded : Yes, in fact MTSA is a great example. We have a security program established with USCG that is based upon our ResponsibleCare ® program. It helps both us and the USCG to cover a large swath of a specific industry sector and to take care of it from a regulatory context.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus : What has been the experience of your members with respect to the New Jersey program?

o Mr. Erny responded : Our understanding is that our members were involved in developing the program in New Jersey. The issue of IST use is very site

- specific. If it works in New Jersey, that doesn’t mean it would work elsewhere. I would caution against making that change throug hout the N ation.

Michel e Roberts, Co

- D irector , Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, handed the panel a photo and provided the following comments:

• My organization is a national coalition of grassroots community groups across the United States. I believe in always making sure that I travel with the communities that I serve. For those of you on the phone, I just handed the panel a photo of a community in Westl ake, Louisiana. The communities that I serve are from Alaska, New Mex ico, California, Kentucky , Delaware, Texas, Louisiana , Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, and Indiana

. I also bring you greetings and thoughts from the National Black Farmers Association. They too are represented in this process.

• I am a bi

- S tate person if you will, like Joseph Biden, our Vice President. I too live in Washington, D

. C

. but have strong roots in Delaware.

• Today, I wish to speak and focus on the Du P ont Edgemoor facility, located in Edgemoor, Delaware. It’s also helpful for you to know that I am a f ormer environmental scientist from the S tate of Delaware, where I have put myself on the front lines as a first responder in these facilities

. I have a ctually respond ed to the standard chlorine gas leak ; I was also present at the 2001 Motiva Corporation ( n ow known as PBF ) explosion, where we lost a worker in that space, never to be recovered.

• There are 11 dangerous facilities along the Interstate I

- 95 corridor between Wilmington and Philadelphia. Several of these facilities put more than 1 million people at risk. F our put more than 200,000 people at risk in the event of a dangerous chemical release. One such facility is the EO Public Listening Session Page 12 Washington, DC November 15, 2013Du P ont facility in Edgemoor, which uses chlorine to produce titanium dioxide, a pigment used to make paper, paints, and plastic opaque o r white. The bulk use and storage of chlorine at this facility puts 600,000 people at risk within 14.2 miles.

• With one strong incident, my entire family, my entire life, everything that I know of, is gone in an instant. The S tate of Delaware, like many S tates, are not adequately prepared , and as Congress debates over budgets , the State has not prepared its own budget to handle a severe emergency response. Now, environmental justice communities across this country have appealed to all of you for the past 10 years about need ing to better protect our communities and the workers inside these facilities.

• I a ppreciate tha t a gencies are holding the se listening sessions and W ebinars

. However, the timing is not conducive to the full participation of those who are most affected; they cannot travel . Further more , we are still grappling with rural America and even getting them c onnected to broadband, as Mr. Hoffman will know, representing the farm communities via the USDA . All this is to say that we respectfully challenge the way in which these listening sessions are conducted, and we would like to partake in how that too is stru ctured. They should be able to meet the needs of those who are most a ffected

.
• Ms. Durkovich provided a clarifying statement: I want to let you know what w e have heard you regarding making these sessions more accessible during the day. We are working to sc hedule sessions in the evening in California, New Jersey, and Texas. There are some challenges with finding facilities available during these times.
Richard Gupton , Senior Vice President, Public Policy & Counsel, Agriculture Retailers Association (ARA) , pr ovided the following comments:

• ARA r epresents the farm supplier retailer/distributor industry segment, located in all 50 S tates, ranging in size from small to large operations

.
• Our industry is highly regulated due to the products we carry. We understand the importance of the safe handling and storage of ammonium nitrate and other products like anhydrous ammonia.

• We are saddened by the tragedy that occurred in West, Texas, and we are hopeful to avoid another such incident through the common sense solutions that this EO will produce

.
• Employees in our represented facilities live in the same communities where they operate.

• We oppose having a statute requiring the use of IST

. It is too difficult to define what is inherently safer. The G overnment should not decide for a facility what products should be carried.

• There should be clear and consistent regulations that are practical and economically feasible for industry.

• There should be more first responder tra ining, including exercises.

• Many local emergency planning committees are poorly funded.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus: Do you think that a change in the regulation is needed to change the way that Tier II filings are amended?

o Mr. Gupton replied : No, our members are telling us that this is an issue because of the way the system works; you cannot simply amend the report, you have to resubmit the EO Public Listening Session Page 13 Washington, DC November 15, 2013entire report. These are simple things that could be done to improve the Tier II reporting proc ess

.
• Mr. Stanislaus mentioned: The EO also calls for looking at best practices in the use of IST. You may want to be thinking about what are the best practices when it comes to safe practices.

o Mr. Gupton responded: When it comes to safer practices, it’s really an issue for the individual facility to evaluate what solutions will work best. It should be left up to those facilities. At the end of the day, who decides if they made the right decision? We believe that should be up to the facility and the priva te market place to decide.
Elizabeth O’Neal, Senior Manager, Government Relations, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), provided the following comments:

• We are the leading trade association representing the batch chemical industry.

• Two hundred member companies employ more than 100,000 workers and provide more than 50,000 products. Over 80% of our members are small businesses.

• Members are required to implement ChemStewards®

— our third

- party verify environment health safety and security management program

— which is based upon continuous improvement.

• Our members are subject to OSHA ’s PSM and EPA ’s RMP , and many are subject to DHS’s CFATS.

• We filed formal comments in October, which emphasize three major recommendations:

o Maximize stakeholder involvement

.

 We are thankful for the working group listening sessions.

 We wish that the working group would have reached out to the stakeholders before crafting the EO.

 We hope that the working group will reach out to stakeholders concerning specific optio ns as they are formulated.

o Make the most of existing law.

 We are g lad to see OSHA using the existing law in regards to the incident in West, Texas.

 We are g lad to see DHS and EPA comparing CFATS Top Screen and RMP lists.

 We believe that Emergency Planni ng and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) has the greatest potential to address the gaps found following the incident in West, Texas. EPCRA did not perform as intended at West, Texas. The first responders, despite being informed, did not appear to underst and the risks involved with the facility.

 EPCRA revitalization should be the key of the EO working group , m ostly because it empowers local communities to oversee and raise questions about emergency planning.

o Use the regulatory program most appropriate to t he task.

 The OSHA explosives and blasting agents standard is the best tool to address storage of AN fertilizer. We do not need additional AN regulation.

EO Public Listening Session Page 14 Washington, DC November 15, 2013 We commend Assistant Administrator Stanislaus for stating that the EPA would not use the Clean Air Ac t General Duty Clause to enact chemical plant security.

 Some people have advocated for the use of IST . The RMP and CFATS programs in just a few years have caused more than 3,000 facilities to voluntarily alter their facilities to reduce risk.

 We suggest th at you rec onsider the development of a reactive chemical database. We opened a discussion on this subject in the 1990s, and we are open to reopening the discussion.

• Mr. Stanislaus asked a clarifying q uestion: You mentioned that EPCRA revitalization has the single greatest opportunity. Do you mean re

- energizing local access to information?

o Ms. O’Neil responded : With the data sheets that are already required, we are working to coordinate planning better. In looking throughout the country, it appears to be a p atchwork, with some areas working better than other. Perhaps there would be an opportunity to improve training throughout the country.

• Ms. Durkovich made a clarifying comment: Part of our discussions about IST has been about how we can leverage our best p ractices and lessons learned throughout the chemical community.
Cynthia Hilton , Executive Vice President, Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), handed a packet to each of the panel members and provided the following comments:

• This pa ckage includes some best practices regarding the handling of AN

. This was also provided in July.

• We welcome this opportunity to address the panel. Our mission is to promote safety and security in the commercial explosives industry

.
• We come with a “ tough love ” message for the working group. Ever since the August 2 nd kick

- off call, we have wanted to be here, but the clock is ticking toward the deadlines . The lack of stakeholder outreach is causing concern. Our organization submitted best practice guidelines , which were not incorporated into the advisory. We were asked to help distribute the advisory, but we cannot because it contains information that we do not agree with.

• We care about safety and security. We learned from the West, Texas incident , and we’ve made changes in our recommendations accordingly.

• Executive Order 13576 promises G overnment transparency and accountability ; the current status of that effort is inadequate. We have provided more than two dozen recommendations. Stakeholders should be able t o review comments submitted by others and respond to them. The working group should provide a periodic summary of actions, issues, and recommendations being addressed and should provide an opportunity for responses

.
• We support the sharing of information wi th the emergency response community but not through the LEPC community. LEPC has had varied success. The security sensitivity of the information of our business operations argues against broadening existing disclosures to these entities. We would recommen d working with the first responder community directly.

EO Public Listening Session Page 15 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• Mr. Barab provided a clarifying comment : By the nature of the AN guidance, we will be receiving conflicting recommendations depending upon the users involved (agriculture versus explosives).

o Ms. H ilton responded: While the Department of Transportation ( DOT ) classifies AN as an explosive, the commercial sector does not have a use for that. Chemically, it is the

same , but the d ifference is only the density. In a fire, you cannot tell the difference.

• A clarifying comment was made by Mr. Barab: We intend to create a docket to share the information we’ve collected as part of this process.

Leslie Fields , Director of Environmental Justice and Community Partnerships , Sierra Club , provided the following com ments:

• Our organization has 2.1 million members.

• I would urge the EPA to issue new guidance that require s chemical facilities to utilize safer and more cost effective chemicals and technologies.

• Every day, according to EPA, the 472 facilities that handle hazardous chemicals each expose more than 100,000 people to possible chemical disaster.

• I will speak concerning Detroit. This is a community of people of color. The Marathon Re finery there exploded in April

. The emergency response at that time was complete ly lacking. The town next door was evacuated, but the local community was not.

• There are other facilities that also have and produce toxic substances in that same area

. Yesterday, there was another toxic chemical fire at another facility. The Detroit Fre e Press has covered the incident and included several very graphic photos of the event.

• Dr. Paul Mohot from University of Michigan conducted a study concerning extended exposure to air pollution. The study evaluated whether the air pollution can be linked to student performance. Public schools in Michigan are disproportionately located in more polluted areas. The majority of students located near the worst pollution are disproportionately of minority backgrounds.

• We would like to see the EPA enforce the C le an A ir A ct to enhance chemical disaster prevention

.
• We would also like to see listening sessions conducted in the evenings.
Topic II : Information Collection and Sharing
Opening Remarks, Scott Breor, Deputy Director, Infrastructure Security Compliance Divi sion, DHS :

• Many of the presenters who addressed the previous topic this morning also spoke to areas regarding information collection and sharing. We too recognize the inter

- relation of these topics.

• Limited information leads to poor decision making.

• Section 5 is divided into three areas:

o Section a deals with analysis.

o Sections b and c are concerned with recommendations for information collection and sharing.

EO Public Listening Session Page 16 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• We have heard some great feedback from you the stakeholders , and we look forward to the continued discussion today.

Sof ia Plagakis, Policy Analyst, Center for Effective Government (formerly OMB Watch) , provided the following comments:

• We are an independent non

- profit organization that advocates for a more transpare nt and accountable Government

.
• Excessive secrecy and information restriction s contribute to gaps, oversights, and indecisions in chemical security efforts. When programs are allowed to operate behind closed doors, with little to no ongoing public oversigh t, they often suffer from delays, wasted resources, and management problems. The public has a fundamental right to know the oversight that the G overnment has in place. The citizens deserve more than a “ trust us ” approach to safety.

• Further collaboration and disclosure among F ederal and S tate agencies is sorely needed. However, many programs have such significant restrictions on accessing their information that even other G overnment agencies can have difficulty using the data. The most effective way to pro mote information sharing is to only protect a narrow scope of information necessary , with the rest being made public. EPA should establish online access to RMP data and should collect and post EPCRA Tier II inventory reports. DHS should make portions of th e CFATS data public ( such as facilities and tiering data)

.
• Engaging and informing the public is essential to preparing them for emergencies. Citizens, first responders, plant workers, and local officials all need to be better informed. Excessive secrecy

ca n cost lives in the event of an emergency.

• Citizens should have access to chemical facility information and should be permitted to participate in emergency planning. For instance, disclosing the names and locations of facilities, the chemicals contained, and the status of inspections would allow members of the community to better understand which facilities are compliant with safety regulations and which are not.

• It is essential to harmonize the scope of chemicals, hazards, and facilities covered by the v arious agencies ’ regulatory programs that address F ederal chemical security regulations. Harmonization would ensure that the broadest list of chemicals of concerns, types of h a zards, and facilities are covered i n a consistent mann e r. This should include creating a system to regularly review and select chemicals for addition to the RMP and other regulatory programs.

• Regulations and statutes should be updated to establish clear authorities for agencies in requiring facilities to use s afer technologies and chemicals , which would better protect citizens in the process. Despite the benefits of safer alternatives, only a fraction of facilities have converted, thus demonstrating the need for F ederal regulation. EPA should implement its auth ority under the General Duty Clause of the Clean Air Act.

EO Public Listening Session Page 17 Washington, DC November 15, 2013David Case, Executive Director, Environmental Technology Council , provided the following comments:

• We are the trade association for the hazardous waste management industry. We have 11 member co mpanies representing about 90% of the commercial hazardous waste management industry.

• Our members provide technologies and services to their customers regarding issues such as chemical recycling and the proper management and disposal of waste materials.

• We have prepared our own best practices document for the proper management of reactive materials in response to the Chemical Safety Board’s recommendation.

• We are very interested in the EO , especially S ection 5. We have some ideas for how to streamline data collection while also lessening the burden to industry. We believe that we should embrace the electronic manifest system being developed by EPA.

• Today, manifests are paper

- based. Unfortunately, these documents are largely unavailable to first responders w ho respond to incidents where vehicles are involved. This is because it is difficult to gather a paper document when a significant incident has occurred.

• Last year, Congress passed a law to mandate EPA to construct the electronic manifest system. The G ove rnment initially allocated the necessary funds for constructing this new system, and a fee

- for

- service structure will, in time, allow industry to repay those costs back to the T reasury. Essentially, the system will not cost the tax payers anything.

• Today, none of the money needed to construct the system has been funded by Congress. Without funding, the development cannot proceed. I would urge the working group to endorse the construction of this system in hopes that Congress will then allocate the necessar y funding.

• A clarifying comment was made by Mr. Stanislaus: I would agree that this new system has the potential to provide several benefits, including the ability to track individual shipments, but also to facilitate data analysis at a higher level.
Michael Kennedy , Agriculture Retailers Association , provided the following comments:

• Retailers play an important part in feeding the world. We provide farmers with seed and crop protection products.

• We are in the process of standing up a new system called “ Responsible Ag. ” to help facilities establish foundational environmental health, safety, and security practices.

• We’ve created a first responder document to get participants from the industry and first responders on the same page and to coordinate events and training. It consists of a pre

inspection and a post

- inspection checklist.

• Outreach is an integral component of notifying facilities of the need to protect their assets. I thought that the AN guidance document was a great move in that effort. It was produced in a relatively quick period , by G overnment standards. It’s a great first step in demonstrating cooperation between G overnment and industry.

• A facility cannot comply with a regulation if they do no t know how it applies to them.

• We recommend look ing more closely at OSHA’s Alliance Program , which effectively engages industry stakeholders to produce documents and share information. EO Public Listening Session Page 18 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• Regulations need to be economically feasible and practical.

• We do not believe that OSHA ’s PSM standards should apply to retailers. The economic burdens exceed the potential safety benefits.

• Regarding EPCRA, we support eliminating the fertilizer agriculture exemption 311 and 312 reporting requirements . It is worth noting that the facility in West, Texas did include infor mation on their AN Tier II reports submitted to local first responders.

• Adding AN to the RMP is unnecessary and difficult, if not impossible, to measure as a regulator.

• There would be no chemical security and safety without CFATS. We support the permanent authorization of CFATS.

• We support a solid AN fertilizer registration rule that does not include mixtures or a broad base of nitrogen fertilizer products

. Any p rogram should be modeled after the restricted use pesticide programs administered by S tates.

David LeGrand e , Director , Occ upational Safety and Health , Communications W orkers of America (CWA) , provided the following comments:

• These remarks are provided on behalf of the CWA, as well as the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disorders.

• We are all too fami liar with the tragedy in West, Texas. That incident killed 15 individuals and injured more than 160 workers and community members. Clearly this incident should never have occurred.

• CWA commends President Obama for his response to this tragedy by issuing this Executive O rder

.
• Time is of the essence. Actions to improve chemical safety and security are of national importance. While delays relating to the G overnment shutdown are understandable, we encourage the working group to develop an early 2014 timetable for completing their efforts.

• According to a recent poll conducted by Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters, 59% of responding voters believe that the F ederal G overnment should require chemical facilities to use safer chemicals and processes when they a re affordable. This can be done by expanding EPA ’ s 2002 Chemical Safety and Security Plan.

• Every day, more than 100 million people live or work near chemical facilities that store large quantities of chemicals, with the potential to kill and/or injure th ousands of individuals. Nearly 500 of these facilities each put more than 100,000 individuals at risk. We encourage the group to put forth a requirement for chemical facilities to move toward safer technologies.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Hoff man: Are any of the organizations you c ited part of the Blue

- Green Alliance ?

o Mr. LeGrande responded : They are not.

Michael Jac oby , Private Sector , provided the following comments:

• Information collection should be done at the beginning of the process. For example, capturing the latitude and longitude of the facility can be done during the planning process. EO Public Listening Session Page 19 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• Data verification is key to solving many of the problems of first responders and fenceline communities.
Cynthia Hilton, Executive Vice President, Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), provided the following comments:

• We want to work with you and have in the past on many important initiatives.

• Everyone should understand that we are not trying to hide information. We are trying to provide it to those who would make the best use of it : the first response community.

• Our most effective recommendation regarding the identification of outliers is to expand EPA ’ s List of Lists. I was aro und when this was initially done , and it was very helpful. W e could add to that the DHS Chemicals of Interest, the ATF List of Explosives, the OSHA PSM List, and the DOT Security Sensitive Hazmats. This could serve as a tool for industry to understand what regulations apply based upon their individual chemical holdings.

• (Ms. Hilton presented the panel a small sample of AN).

• 29 CFR 1910.109(i) is the bedrock of AN safety. In the wake of the incident in West, Texas, we support strengthening this standard to remove obsolete references, to eliminate the option to store AN in combustible structures, and to advise first responders not to fight fires involving AN.

• We disagree with some who assert that the DHS Ammonium Nitrate Security Program would have preven ted the disaster in West, Texas. The program ’ s ill

- conceived chain of custody procedures will have disastrous consequences for our industry. We urge you to issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to include an exception for transportation activi ties that are under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration ( TSA )

. Additionally, it doesn’t make sense to overlay redundant vetting for individuals who handle AN when those same individuals have been vetted by ATF for the safe handling of high explosives.

• No one is against vetting individuals, but we need to avoid duplication in vetting individuals. It is costly and unnecessary.

• As we are unaware of any accidental detonation of AN in a facility compliant with OSHA ’ s standards, and given that OSHA is enforcing their standards , IME believe s that OSHA’s program is sufficient . We oppose expanding EPA ’ s RMP program to include AN

. Introduction of afternoon panelists:

• Jord an B arab , OSHA, Department of Labor

• Mathy S tanislaus , EPA

• Dave Wulf, D HS

• Capt. Andrew Tucchi , USCG

• J essica P u ltz

, USDA
Topic III : Policy , Regulation and Standard Modernization
Lisa Long, Offic e of Engineering Safety, OSHA, provided opening remarks on Section 6, covering the content of Section 6 a through 6 e and providing an update on the working group’s activities . EO Public Listening Session Page 20 Washington, DC November 15, 2013Jim Cooper, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers ( AFPM ) , provided the following comments:

• Fuel and petrochemical manufacturing i s complex. They are all within custom

- designed facilities , and it takes years to build them at great expense.

• AFPM provide s an opportunity for petrochemical manufacturers to share best practices.

• Policies must not stifle innovation in the private sector. They should not pick winners and losers,

n or should they de fine the laws of physics.

• Regarding IST , t his is a philosophical approach. There is no objective way of measuring if one process is safer than another.

• Chemistry and engineering are bound by the laws of physics. Opportunities for improving an existing faci lity are often difficult to identify. IST is generally engineered into facilities when they are planned , not after they are constructed

.
• We are concerned that the burden of increased regulation may drive manufacturing outside the U

. S.

• The employees of fuel and petrochemical companies are members of the communities. No one is more concerned with improving facility safety than the people who work there.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus: You talked about some of the difficulties concerning IST

. Are there parameters or guidelines to do it well ?

o Mr. Cooper responded : Certainly. Many of our members are large companies that belong to organizations like the Center for Chemical Process Safety and the Mary K. O’Conner Safety Institute. They are very i nvolved and at the forefront of the discussion concerning process safety and safer design.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Barab: Regarding the use of IST , we understand that the G overnment should not be dictating how a facility operates a proprietary process. What role could the G overnment have in this area?

o Mr. Cooper responded: The primary role of value is as a facilitator to help with information sharing.

• A clarifying question w as asked by Mr. Barab : You have discussed problems with definition and with measurement. These seem like things that could be worked through your organization. Is that something you would be willing to do ?

o Mr. Cooper responded : Yes, but w e have to be care ful because sometimes companies gain a competitive advantage through their differences in process. We have to be careful not to violate that proprietary value.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus : Do you have an opinion regarding other organi zations and the guidance they have issued regarding IST ? What has been the experience in New Jersey with its IST requirement?

o Mr. Cooper responded : In New Jersey, it i s a paperwork exercise. It’s something you have to do anyway and it is simply repeating i tself. It will not yield a different result than other existing programs. I was able to work on a book on site vulnerability assessments (SAVs)

. We view these SAVs as the models that people should be striving for. To take these documents and have them adop ted by a broader range of stakeholders would
EO Public Listening Session Page 21 Washington, DC November 15, 2013likely be appropriate, but we need to have a neutral party convene the stakeholders and allow them to participate at no additional cost.

Peter Weaver , International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA), provide d the following comments:

• ILTA represent s facilities that store and handle petro

- chemical products. Our facilities interface with all modes of transportation, and our members operate in all 50 S tates.

• One obser vation I have made regarding the EO is that t h ere is a blurring of lines of authority between the agencies addressed in the order. While this may not have been the intention of the EO authors, it is worth considering.

• If you go back about 8 years, my first project de a lt with how to clarify the lines of authority between EPA and DOT regarding the transfer of hazardous materials. What resulted was a chart , still used today , that clearly illustrates the line between the two agencies. My concern is that agencies may create unclear lines of authority in their efforts to collaborate , which could lead to pursuit of activities that go beyond congressional authority. We should be careful to avoid that when discussing standards modernization and new approaches to chemical safety.

• A clarifying statement was made by Mr. Barab : The EO didn’t give us any new powers for anything that we were not already authorized to do. Regarding the PSM standard, there are very strict rules about how we justify changes. We will continue to be careful about the concerns you
are raising.
Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace , provided the following comments:

• We represent about a quarter million Americans in the U

. S. We have been working on this issue since the time before the B hopa l, India incident

.
• We thank you for the listening sessions. We are encouraged by both the Executive O rder and the listening sessions

.
• We think you have the authority under Section 112 r of the Clean Air Act ’s General Duty Clause to mandate the use of IST

. All you need to do there is update the guidance.

• Regarding section 112 r 7(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA never issued regulations on its authority to prevent disasters in the first place. Typically the General Duty Clause is used after an incident, not before

.
• We a re very focused on the legal opportunities and authority to operate in favor of accident prevention and /or national security requirements

. That’s because the 1999 amendment of the Clean Air Act injected provisions for Homeland Security.

• We believe that the worst

- case scenarios provided to EPA are showing catastrophic potential more than 1,000 times more horrific than the incident in West, Texas. As such, we encourage the mandate for the use of i nherently s afer t echnologies.

• We encourage you to take a look at our petition and House of Representatives bill (H.R.) 2868, which passed the House in 2009. The packets we provided you earlier this morning present section 2111 on IST implementation and assessment. It also provides a de finition of IST that you may find useful.
EO Public Listening Session Page 22 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• We agree with our industry brothers and sisters that there is no one

- size

- fits

- all solution when it comes to the use of IST. We agree that each facility is unique and must evaluate IST according to its own unique s ituation. However, facilities still need to demonstrate that they have put forward the effort to evaluate these alternatives.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus : How could you implement a requirement for facilities to adopt IST?

o Mr. Hind res ponded : This is partially addressed in H.R. 2868 , which addresses privately held chemical facilities and public water treatment facilities

. Some facilities have voluntarily switched chemicals in response to CFATS, but we don’t have data as to which faciliti es have done so.

• A clarifying statement was made by Mr. David Wulf (DHS) : CFATS has resulted in more than 3,000 facilities reducing or eliminating hazardous chemicals of interest.

o Mr. Hind responded : I would agree, but we would like to see the data compa rison between CFATS data and RMP data.
Gerald Poj e, Society for Occupational and Environmental Health, provided the following comments:

• I s erved on the National Academy of Sciences review of the post

- 9/11 vulnerabilities. I would urge the group to review t he report that was conducted post

- 9/11 regarding chemical safety.

• IST approaches are woefully under

- assessed in meeting the needs of communities . IST is the most effective way to prevent catastrophic events.

• Please evaluate the results of communities that have required the use of IST.

• Evaluate industries ’ adopted best practice methods and their barriers to adopting IST.

• Produce annual reports with facilities that have used IST , which thereby qualify them to unregister with EPA, OSHA , or DHS programs.

• E xplore technical assistance grants for communities located in vulnerability zones surrounding hazardous facilities so that workers and communities can benefit from expert opinion regarding the availability and feasibility of safer processes

.
• Ens ure effec tive rights

- to

- know for workers and community members about catastrophic risks, chemical hazards, processes, and their alternatives. The alternatives are the crucial definition here.

• Adopt common F ederal definition s for high hazardous facilities and expa nd the definition for high

- hazard chemicals based upon Chemical Safety Board ( CSB ) recommendations.

• Develop a publically accessible F ederal database with inspection information to help facilities from f alling through the cracks.

• Identify the most effective electronic methods for communicating with chemical facilities.

• Ensure that employees are sufficiently trained in areas of safety and security systems

.
• We s upport greater analysis of PSM, RMP , and CFATS training needs applicable to three audienc es: managers and line workers at high

- hazard facilities, those involved in facility redesign, and those involved in emergency response.

EO Public Listening Session Page 23 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus : What role do you see the F ederal G overnment playing with regards IST ?

o Mr. Poje responded : There needs to be a broad partnership. There is no one stakeholder who can make this work perfectly , but by working together we can advance this significant ly

. After the 1984 incident in B hopa l, where 8,000 people were killed, with 300 ,000 ultimately suffering from that tragedy, many facilities began changing their technologies. Perhaps the last American facility to do that was in Institute, West Virginia , when they changed their technologies in 2008 or 2009. That’s an incredibly slow p rocess to adapt to inherently safer technologies. However, there are many other choices in industry that are now beginning to be well

- know n . Industry should become an agent of transformative change by being a broker of information and getting the word out. There is great potential for learning in industry, but we need everyone working together to facilitate that change.
Randy Manne r, a p rivate c itizen , provided the following comments:

• I r etired last year as a Major General for the U

. S

. Army. I was the second officer for the National Guard Bureau, the organization that often serves as the back

- up to first responders during large

scale incidents.

• I also s erved as Deputy and Acting Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). One mission of tha t organization is to measure the terrorist threat against a number of facilities throughout the country.

• One job at DTRA was to plan, detect, and mitigate weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

. Unfortunately, we don’t have to look for WMD, as they are here rig ht now , existing in nearly every major city right now

.
• For decades, our country has failed to address a security risk at home that puts large numbers of our citizens at risk, even though the problem has common sense solutions. Of course, the problem is the vulnerability of our chemical facilities to an industrial accident or terrorist attack. In my opinion, some of the best methods of reducing the chance of a terrorist attack is by simply making the chemical facilities less appealing . Catastrophic consequen ces can be minimized by replacing hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives and by curtailing the amounts used and stored.

• The National Guard is often called upon to assist during a large chemical facility incident, especially in cases where local first responders do not have adequate manpower, equipment , or training to address the situation.

• I applaud the efforts of industry in making our plants safer, but it simply is not enough. Meaningful, positive change can happen. Hundreds of facilities, including several Clorox facilities, have already switched to more cost effective and safer solutions.

• Regulations and guidelines must be thoughtful and well

- designed.

• Full and p roactive F ederal action is urgently needed. The lives of millions of Americans are de pending upon your actions.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Barab: What do you mean by being proactive? EO Public Listening Session Page 24 Washington, DC November 15, 2013o Gen. Manner (Ret.) responded : Many others have spoken regarding various approaches. One example is to have smaller chemical holdings or to switch to a safer chemical.

• Mr. Barab asked: Do you think there should be a F ederal role in requiring these activities?

o Gen. Manner (Ret.) responded: No. However, these changes need to be negotiated. Government, w orking with industry and environmental groups, need to work collectively to make change.

Steve Ardent , Vice President, ABS Group, provided the following comments:

• I’m with ABS Group in Houston, but I’m here today representing myself and my three grandchildren as a process safety expert. I have over 35 years of experience in industry. I was present when many of these rules were developed and have worked to help them grow up and mature. I have worked to develop guides and industry best practice documents for PSM and RMP.

• If we want to improve chemical fa cility safety and security , then we need to improve an increase in performance or a reduction of risk regarding our current investments.

• We need to analyze the root causes of safety and security lapses. I suggest that you review how the Department of Interior M ineral and Management Service the Bureau of Ocean, Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement , and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement address changes to their offshore safety and environmental management requirements. Prior to the Macondo accident, they were making an attempt to define the regulations that identified the root cause of performance

- lapse.

• We must have a robust, transparent , fact

- based, and technical approach to improving any rule ; otherwise, these rules will not be easily owned and implemented by everyone

.
• In my experience, I have seen that there are four kinds of companies:

o Companies that know what to do and do it pretty well

o Companies that know what to do and occasionally fail

o Companies that know what t o do and intentionally don’t (those are the criminals)

o Companies that don’t know what to do

• We need to be careful about trying to create a new framework or regulation that addresses all four of these groups with the same solution.

• Change needs to be bas ed on direct targeting and enforcement activities. Regulators need to improve their enforcement efforts with high

- hazard and non

- compliant facilities . You need more people , and those people need to be well

- trained and competent

.
• We need more effective gath ering and sharing of performance information with industry.

• CSB has regulatory authority to write rules on accident reporting. This is also something to consider working with.

• Smart changes to the existing regulations would be setting better goals for com panies that are likely to generate better or more cost

- effective solutions

. Alternatively , you can e stablish new requirements when we learn of new hazards. In the past few years, we’ve become more aware of reactive chemicals , and we now realize that we may need to do more to manage those risks.

EO Public Listening Session Page 25 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Barab: You are the only speaker who has advocated for better quality enforcement. Targeting enforcement has always been a challenge for us. The resource requirements are enormou s. Given those constraints, can you elaborate?

o Mr. Ardent responded : Of course

. OSHA, in establishing the PSM , had to pass their own Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) requirement concerning paperwork reduction and the costs associated with that. There were probably some things people wished had been in the rule but did not make it. One was that companies did not need to announce if they were covered or not. There are other ways to find out if people do not know , but that would , of course , require data sharing among S tate and F ederal agencies. There can be smarter ways of identifying these people and making sure they understand. We may also be able to create some incentives for companies relating to IST. The challenge is in dealing with com panies with existing facilities, rather than those who are working on new designs.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus : Do you have recommendations on reactive chemicals?

o Mr. Ardent responded : It might be better if I sent you a few papers on that topic. There are a few different strategies you could take. A more global approach would be something like changing a few words in the PSM standard , but this would have other effects. You could say, “ Let’s cover processes capable of generating a thres hold quantity.” You would have to address reactive chemicals differently for the generation of energy . If you did something like that, you would run into some situations where the change was simply not justified.
Jim Brinkley , Director , OSHA , International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) , provided the following comments:

• IAFF is a labor organization that represents more than 300,000 paid professional employees in the U

. S

. and Canada.

• The profession of firefighting is and has always been a hazardous occ upation, but there are hazards we face on a daily basis that can be minimized or eliminated completely. When the fire broke out at the West, Texas fertilizer facility, firefighters did what they do best : they went in to protect the citizens. The massive am monium nitrate explosion rocked the community, killing 13 people, including 11 firefighters. It injured hundreds and leveled scores of homes, a school , and a nursing home. The incident could have been worse had it occurred during school hours.

• An entire pa tchwork of regulation was not enough to prevent the incident in West, Texas. We now know that the AN in question was stored in wood bins inside a wood building, with no sprinkler protection.

• We now know that the facility was cited twice in the past 7 years for improperly storing anhydrous ammonia.

• We now have this recent history to know that w e can and we must do better.

• Better information sharing, stricter rules, and updated first responder training is need ed.

• To help decrease the danger, c ritical regulations must be tightened. EO Public Listening Session Page 26 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• First responders must be provided with additional information and training regarding the location and storage of these unsafe substances

.
• These issues are not unique to remote areas. Every day, hundreds of facilities storing hazardous materials put more than 100,000 citizens at risk in nearby communities. Millions more are put at risk when these chemicals are in transit.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Barab: We need to prot ect our first responders, but e ven if you have perfect regulations, in half the S tates public employees are not covered by OSHA. Volunteers, like volunteer firefighters, are not covered in any of the S tates

. o Mr. Brinkley responded : The increase in regulations would not be intended to cover first responders, but rather to reduce the number of incidents.

Ron Chitti m, American Petroleum Institute (API) , provided the following comments:

• API is a national trade association representing al l segments of the oil and natural gas industry. Our 500 members include large integrated companies, exploration production, refinery, marketing, and other oil

- related companies.

• We believe that regulatory programs should consist of rules that are feasible and that can be und er stood and complied with. There should be effective enforcement of those rules, and lessons should be effectively learned from performance data, incidents, and near

- misses.

• We believe that regulation should be risk

- based or performance

- based and should be based upon sound scientific data. R oot causes should be analyzed to ensure that changes are focused on real regulatory proficiencies.

• Regulatory changes should not pursue a mythical “zero

- risk.” They should only be considered when ther e is evidence that there is regulatory deficiency and not just evidence of lack of performance with established regulations.

• API believes that the current PSM and RMP rules have worked well to support industry. If changes are made, they should be reasona ble and should not create adverse unintended consequences.

• We believe that standards play an important role in the regulated community. API has been developing standards for over 95 years and currently manages over 600. They are often incorporated into other standards , such as OSHA ’s

.
• IST is essentially risk

- management or risk

- reduction. This is just one risk

- reduction strategy. Passive risk reduction and procedural risk reduction are other methods that should also be looked into also

.
• IST is not just chemical substitution. Other aspects of IST include facility simplification , chemical minimization (volume reduction s ) , and moderation (using lower temperatures and pressures)

.
• A clarifying question asked by Mr. Barab: If I understand correctly, you’re not opposed to IST, correct?

o Mr. Chittim responded : I would suggest that the regulations focus on risk reduction. Let the sites and companies determine how to accomplish that goal. The use of IST may be a chosen approach, but there may be other reasonable al ternatives to reduce the risk.

EO Public Listening Session Page 27 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus : What role do you see for G overnment in laying out elements of risk reduction?

o Mr. Chittim responded : This is one of the things I was trying to mention earlier. Set a performa nce bar and have the inspectors check to see if they are meeting that performance level. The difference is that you are letting the companies decide how to meet the performance objectives. Some will choose to implement safer technologies, while others may reduce inventories or seek other alternatives.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus: I believe your organization is using third

- party verification today. Do you see a role for any kind of third

- party verification ?

o Mr. Chittim responded : We hav e a voluntary program that we started about a year and a half ago in which some assessors verify refineries against a set of protocols. These facilities are left with a final report that includes observations and a set of comments on things that they were doing well. It is entirely voluntary , and there is no follow

- up to see if the facility took action on the report’s comments. The assessors are veterans with decades of experience, so they know what success looks like.
Jenny Levin, U

. S

. Public Interest Research Group (U. S. PIRG), provided the following comments:

• I am the public health advocate for our organization. Our organization is a citizen

- based political

non
- profit that advocates on behalf of ordinary citizens.

• We have members living in the shad ow of chemical facilities throughout the U nited S tates

. Across the country, more than 110 million Americans live within the vulnerability zone of more than 300 facilities.

• The 9/11 terrorist attacks showed us that conventional fence line security cannot prevent a successful attack and its devastating consequences. A successful attack against a facility could yield more casualties than the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the 1984 B hopa l, India disaster.

• Across the county, many facilities store large quantities of dangerous chemicals. The good news is that more secure facility processes exist that can replace virtually all of these hazards. Nearly 280 facilities , ranging from oil refiners to drinking water refineries, are already using safer processes and chemic als. This demonstrates that we don’t have to put communities at unnecessary risk.

• In 2009 , Congress passed the Chemical and Water Security Act. Unfortunately, the bill faced a vigorous lobbying effort in the Senate and was not successful in gaining full a pproval.

• Today, chemical companies and trade associations are spending millions in contributions to reelection campaigns and lobbyists. Many of these lobbyists are former committee members.

• When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990, it req uired EPA to publish regulations and guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. EPA established the risk management program that requires companies of all sizes to develop an RMP, including a hazard assess ment, and an evaluation of worst

- case scenarios. We have reviewed the RMP submissions and determined that a single facility or company can put thous ands of people at risk.

EO Public Listening Session Page 28 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• We know that safer technologies are available for many of the chemical processes in use today. For example, following 9/11, the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant in Washington, D

. C

. switched from using chlorine gas and sulfur dioxide onsite to using sodium hypochlorite bleach in its processes. In 2009, Clorox announced plans to modify ma nufacturing processes in in the U

. S

. bleach operations by transitioning from chlorine gas to high

- strength bleach as a raw material for making its namesake product.

• According to a national poll commissioned by the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters, Americans of both parties believe that the G overnment should require companies to use safer chemical processes.

• Since the incident in West, Texas and the F ederal G overnment shutdown, there have been several accidents at chemical facilities resulting in injuries and deaths.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus: Regarding safer technologies, the question is how we should proceed . What is your recommend ation?

o Ms. Levin responded : The previous speaker mentioned that once we make industry invest in safer alternatives , those things will develop. We’ve seen large corporations invest in putting some of these alternatives to use. Of course, we would not want the fox to guard the hen house, so the G overnment would need to ensure that the facilities are putting the right protections in place.
John Bresland, a private citizen , provided the following comments:

• I was a member of the Chemical Safety Board from 200 2 to 2012. I was the chairman of the Chemical Safety Board from March 2008 until June 2010.

• I’m a ssociated with Texas A&M University as a research fellow. I w ork with students pursuing a PhD in Chemical Process Safety.

• Before my time with the Chemical S afety Board, I worked for Honeywell International, formerly Allied Signal, for 35 years.

• I am speaking today on behalf of myself and not for any of the organizations I’m currently or formerly have been working with.

• I toured the West, Texas incident scen e with six PhD students just a few weeks after the accident.

• The tragedy in West, Texas was avoidable. The hazards of AN are well

- known. I hope that the investigations will explore what information was available to the firefighters.

• The facility in West was regulated by several agencies , including: OSHA, EPA, DHS, the DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ( PHMSA ) , the Texas Department of State Health Services, the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, and the Office of the Texas State Chemist

. There needs to be a clear understanding of each agency’s role in West. W e need to take a careful look at all of the regulations and decide what, if anything, needs to be changed.

• Each facility storing or using AN needs to be identified and i nspected. There are limited inspectors available, but we could turn to third

- party inspectors.

EO Public Listening Session Page 29 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• Information on chemical hazards is available to the local communities and emergency responders via Tier II reports, as required under EPCRA. It typically gets to the local level from the LEPCs and S tate emergency response agency.

• The effectiveness of LEPCs varies considerably by location.

• Facility siting is an important issue in this discussion. It is my understanding that in West, Texas, the facility was in a rural area outside of town, but the town eventually grew out and around it. There are several facilities in the United States that store AN. How clo se are they to the communities they serve? I’m not suggesting that these facilities should move, but the members of the community have a right to know about hazards located nearby.

• It is likely that small fertilizer facilities will assess their own risks and may decide to stop using AN in their fertilizer blends. Higher insurance rates may be a factor in encouraging facilities to stop using AN.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus : You mentioned concerns with facility siting

. What is the rol e for F ederal G overnment ? Is it disclosure or informational?

o Mr. Bresland responded : Following the BP Texas City accident, which I was involved in investigating, one recommendation we made was that the Government need s to look inside the facility . As a re sult, I know that industry has moved towards relocating some assets inside the facility ( such as control rooms) , away from dangerous areas. I live in West Virginia, and I know that I do not have any hazardous facilities near me; however, I would want to kn ow if there were.

Pam Guffain, Vice President, Member Services, The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) , provided the following comments:

• We’d like to thank you all for hosting these public listening sessions.

• TFI ’ s membership consists of manufacturers, wholesa lers, retailers, and importers of all types of fertilizers. Our industry makes a significant contribution to the U

. S

. economy through jobs and the sale of goods and services. Fertilizer is responsible for approximately 50% of world food production.

• The fertilizer industry lives with the West, Texas fertilizer explosion every day. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims, their families, and the community at large.

• We support efforts for coordination a mong S tate and F ederal agencies , including cross
referencing databases and synchronizing inspections.

• We have asked our members to meet with local emergency responder s and to invite them into their facilities so they will have a clear understanding of the fertilizer business

.
• There is c urrently an exception for retail fertilizer facilities under EPCRA. We support the removal of this exclusion . We feel that everyone , without exception, should report hazardous chemicals stored onsite to the LEPC, the State Emergency Response Commission , an d the local fire department. This reporting should be limited to hazardous chemicals so that these responders and agencies are not overburdened with excess ive information.

• TFI support s the long

- term authorization of CFATS , and we look forward to our contin ued cooperation with DHS

. EO Public Listening Session Page 30 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• TFI has worked closely with EPA on RMP , as it pertains to agriculture retailers. We’re currently undergoing a 5

- year update of a software product that we developed in cooperation with EPA. We look forward to that continued coopera tion.

• Our members are currently working with NFPA and serve on a special task force established to examine which changes need to be made to the AN code under NFPA. We’ve been meeting with OSHA on 1910.109(i) , and we look forward to continued cooperation i n this area as well.

• To address differences in crops and climates, f armers need to have choice in the fertilizers they

use.

• As an industry, we have several voluntary efforts underway. We are working with the Agriculture Retailers Association (ARA) and ha ve made available a regulatory compliance tool. It is a W eb

- based program for agricultural retailers to assess their compliance with F ederal regulations.

• TFI and ARA are developing a fertilizer code of practice, with third

- party audits for retailers handling fertilizer materials. The program will help to ensure that those handling and storing crop nutrients are doing so in accordance with F ederal regulations.

• We will be providing detailed comments in the upcoming RFI.

Christ ina Morgan, U

. S

. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) , provided the following comments:

• Its legislative mandate specifically directed the CSB to issue recommendations on reducing the likelihood or consequences of accidental releases and to propose corrective steps for making chemical production, processing, handling, and storage as safe and free from risk of injury as possible.

• Since 1998, the board has issued a number of recommendations to OSHA and the EPA. Several important regulatory recommendations to these agen cies remain unaddressed, and therefore critical safety gaps that the CSB has identified in OSHA ’ s PSM standard and EPA ’ s RMP remain. For example, in f all 2002, CSB released its study on the management of reactive chemical hazards. At that time, CSB researc h identified 167 serious incidents in the U

. S

. between 1980 and 2001. Nearly one
- third of these incidents affect the public , and nearly half involved chemicals that were not (and still are not) covered by PSM or RMP. Therefore, the Board issued recommenda tions to OSHA and EPA , calling for revisions to these standards that would achieve more comprehensive control of reactive hazards.

• CSB was encouraged by the spring 2013 announcement by OSHA that it would consider revisions to the PSM standard to include reactive chemicals. We are hopeful that the EPA RMP standard will also address these hazards.

• As this group works to improve chemical safety, we generally agree that IST can be achieved through four principals:

o Material substitution

o Minimizing inventory

o Moderating temp erature s and pressures
o Less complex processes

EO Public Listening Session Page 31 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• Many will advocate against IST due to costs , b ut those costs must be weighed against the potential loss of life and property under existing practices.

• The CSB is examin ing the potential benefits of alternative regulatory regimes for improving chemical facility safety. For example, the safety case regime requires facilities to demonstrate that they can operate safely and in conformance with the latest industry standards to the satisfaction of regulators. This approach provides industry the opportunity to tailor regulations to their specific facilities , with the overall goal of continuous risk reduction and major accident prevention. The success of t his approach will be dependent upon well

- funded and competent regulator s

. Maria Cabrera, Councilmember, City of Wilmington, Delaware , provided the following comments:

• A year ago today, I was sworn in as the first Hispanic council member in our community.

• We live in a poor community with poor air quality and cancer clusters. We have EPA laws that are not being enforced or are being enforced with no more than a hand slap to those who are breaking them.

• It seems that industry settles into poor communities, but we also need jobs in our community.

• I live within a mile from the Du P ont Edgemoor plant, which produces t itanium dioxide

.
• We do not have the resources to handle a significant accident in our community.

• We have three rivers that flow through our community.

• Our Emergency Management Center is located close to the port of Wilmington, where many chemicals are stored

. It is within 2 miles of the Du P ont Edgemoor facilit y.

• The evacuation route for the Du P ont Edgemoor facility is within 300 feet of the facility. The second evacuation route is about 1.5 miles away. How are we going to evacuate the community if there is a release into the air ?

• Our first responders do not h ave the resources needed to deal with a significant incident.

• I

- 95 runs through our city. 50 years ago, we lost a lot of our homeowners. The majority of residents are renters. Due to the exodus of citizens, we do not have the necessary tax revenue to deal with a catastrophic incident.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Barab: How well is the LE PC working in your community? Have you participated with them ?

o Ms. Cabrera responded : I have not worked with them, b ut my colleague Michele Roberts will be spe aking later.
Libby Foley, Environmental Working Group , provided the following comments:

• The Environmental Working Group is an environmental

- based non

- profit, operating here in Washington, D

. C.

• According to chemical facility reports to EPA RMP, there are 473 other chemical facilities that each put 100,000 or more at risk. Part of the reason for this risk is the bulk storage of inhalation hazards such as chlorine gas, anhydrous ammonia, sulfur dio xide , and hydrofluoric acid.

EO Public Listening Session Page 32 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• In 2004, the Homeland Security Council determined that a sudden release of chlorine gas, such as from a 90

- ton rail car, could kill 17,500 people , seriously injure 10,000 more, and send an additional 100,000 people to the ho spital.

• We urge the EPA to use its authority to close loopholes in guidance and standards, requiring disaster prevention.

• Safe and cost effective chemical processes are already in use. Since 2001, hundreds of chemical facilities have switched to safer ch emical processes. These conversions have eliminated risks to thousands of people. Famous examples of this are at the Washington, D

. C

. waste water plan t that converted from chlorine gas and the 2012 conversion of Clorox facilities from chlorine gas. Howeve r, at this rate, it will take decades to convert all existing facilities , and it does not prevent someone from creating a new facility using older, more dangerous processes and chemicals.

• The hazards presented by many of these chemical facilities are gene rally in communities with residents of economic disadvantage or people of color.

• In a March 14, 2012 letter, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council urged the EPA administrator to adopt new rules.

• Former EPA administrator Gov. Christine To dd Whitman wrote the EPA administrator on April 3, 2012, warning that the 2006 chemical plan security law is extremely limited in preventing chemical disasters. She supported implementing the recommendations of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
Michele Roberts, Co

- coordinator, Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, provided the following comments:

• I want to thank you for this opportunity to share.

• I just want to piggy back on something from earlier today. M any communities that live fence line to these industries experience disproportionate medical effects, such as asthma, cancer, and heart disease. When these communi ties were told to shelter in place, there’s no way to get the m the medicine and assistance needed to help them through these disasters

. O ften this lack of supplies can exacerbate a severe asthma attack and the like.

• W e need a deeper source of training an d interconnection between F ederal, S tate , and local governments so that we in the community are number one

. These governments need to be not only mindful of where the se harmful chemicals are stored , but also mindful of where high populations of serious hea lth challenges are.

• First of all, w e should make sure that where possible and proven, safe alternative chemical substitution can be made. Number two, we should minimize the bulk storage of chemicals in these facilities and use these chemicals only as nee ded. Number three, we should encourage the market to become more innovative, creating opportunities to go deeper into research and development to produce the safer alternative s necessary to better protect all people in this country and beyond

. These suggestions address the issues of economics raised by some of the chemical corp orations.

• A t the end of the day, we are about protecting the public heal th of workers and communities

. EO Public Listening Session Page 33 Washington, DC November 15, 2013• In my former role as an environmental scientist working in a local communi ty, I was called personally to go and respond to the standard chlorine leak in Delaware City

. I will be honest ; I did not have any training that year . We would go through a series of ongoing repetitive trainings that are calendared for the year. In t hat pa rticular year, I did not yet have that training. I received an emergency call to go down to Standard Chlorine into a c h lorine cloud leak . At that time, (1) I didn’t have all the necessary materials in my truck to respond to , and (2) I did not yet have the training ( or at least refresher training )

. T here needs to be some type of training for local government responders. Not only that but many health professionals are not trained to really put those processes together, as related to toxic chemicals and human health. In some cases, those are elective school courses

.
• T here needs to be some type of program in place to address these concerns

. I don’t know if it should be run through the Department of Health and Human S ervices, along with a piece that O S HA and EPA address to ensure that everyone across the board is trained on a core response

. We also must make sure that there is a plan in place for communities , suc h as Mossville. W hen it is necessary for them to evacuate or to shelter in place, there shou ld be a process to follow after that.

• Around 2009, t here was an inadequate response to a fire in a Mossville home , and ever since then , the Mossville community appealed to the local LEPC

. The residents wanted to have a community meeting to discuss how to better respond . Unfortunately, they are still waiting for that meeting , and they are still waiting for that training. Meanwhile, they’re surrounded by 14 toxic industry facilities.

• W e need to have a better integration of local, S tate, and F ederal gov er nment s , as well as having training, risk and bulk storage minimization , , and , when possible, safer alternatives substituted

. Cynthia Hilton , Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), provided the following comments:

• I w anted to clarify an earlier point regarding the forms of AN.

• I would like to start off by saying that Texas City was a disastrous event. Industry is not a monster; w e no longer manufacture wax
- coated prills

.
• Companies are not faceless entities. People who work at our facilities are memb ers of our families and communities. We have a vested interest in workplace safety.

• The classification of hazardous materials is done through the United Nation s . With the exception of explosives, you can self

- classify. If you have an explosive, you have to run a set of tests and submit your application, which DOT will review and then classify

.
• The explosive form of AN, UN0222, has a descriptor with it, something like 0.2% of a combustible. DOT has not issued this classification to any AN product.

• The AN we are talking about here is an Oxidizer 5.1.

• IME looks at issues and then develop s best practices. When doing so, we invite industry and agencies to the table. ATF has been coming to our meetings and sitting in on our discussions. I would invite the membe rs of G overnment here today to attend our discussions and meet ings.
Topic: Best Practices EO Public Listening Session Page 34 Washington, DC November 15, 2013Amy Graydon presented opening remarks for the “ Best Practices ” topic:

• The EO calls for us to identify and share best practices.

• The sub

- working group has been workin g to develop a definition for “ best practice. ” So far, we have a draft definition we would like to share with you:

o Best practices include m ethods, techniques, processes, systems, tactics, or approaches that result in successful, productive, safer, and more secure operations. These practices have been identified through me a ns 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.

• We would like feedback on our definition. We would also like to see ideas about how to gather and share best practices within the stakeholder community.
Meg h an Hous ewrig ht, Associate General Counsel for Government Affairs, NFPA , provided the following comments:

• We are an over 100

- year
- old ANSI

- accredited organization that develops consensus standards.

• One of the most applicable codes to the discussion here today is t he Hazardous Materials Code , NFPA 400. This is applicable to the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Currently i n the revision cycle, we are reviewing the handling and storage of ammonium nitrate.

• We also have NFPA 472 , Standard for Competence of R es ponders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass destruction Incidents

.
• I’d also like to touch on NFPA 1620 , Standard for Pre

- incident P lanning. This guide s first responders through pre

- incident planning, so they know the types of hazards in their community.

• NFPA has an established group of stakeholders and a history of bringing industry and first responders together to collaborate on our NFPA recommendations.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Barab : One of the problems with NFPA is the number of

recomme ndations and the associated costs to access them. Is there a way to address that challenge?

o Ms. Housewright responded : The NFPA posts all codes on our W ebsite in a read

- only format. Regarding the complexity of the documents themselves, I believe that speaks the need for better training of first responders.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Stanislaus : Do you have an opinion on the use of your codes in training , including private training?

o Ms. Housewright responded : Our codes are used extensiv ely in first responder training, normally through a S tate fire academy. The standard of training for firefighters is NFPA standards. I can get back to you with more information about how the standards are used and to what extent.

• A clarifying question was asked by Mr. Barab : One issue in West, Texas is that the S tate does not have mandatory fire codes

. How would this Executive O rder address that issue? EO Public Listening Session Page 35 Washington, DC November 15, 2013o Ms. Housewright responded : The Federal G overnment would have a hard time mandating the adoption of fire code s at the S tate and local level s; however, it could strongly recommend it.

Michael Jac oby, a private citizen , provided the following comments:

• Today, we’ve heard a lot of concerns about policy, funding, and how to support different approaches.

• Data quality needs to be a focus, specifically regarding location.

• Through the EPA, I came up with an approach for finding solutions by reversing how a s ystem was designed . This approach enables systems to find latitude and longitude coordinates in seconds and to produce an image.

• We expanded that approach to include bulk submission of hundreds of submittals at a time.

• The process is in place and is wo rking. We need the support of the President to take this monumental step of checking the data in our systems.
Rick Hind, Greenpeace , provided the following comments:

• In your package this morning, we prepared a copy of a letter written to Administrator Jack son, dated last April . We also have the draft proposal that was developed in 2002, which I believe addresses earlier questions about specifics.

• We are careful not to direct what you do, but in terms of outcomes and goals, those are the ideas we are trying to share.

• In the 1920s, a blue ribbon panel recommended that lead be removed from gasoline . It was allowed to be a voluntarily measure . It took until the 1980s for us to mandate the removal of lead in the U

. S.

The moderator initiated c losing r emar ks:

• There are several additional listening sessions scheduled and being scheduled:

o The next session will be in Springfield, IL on Nov ember 19.

o First W ebinar will be on November 25.

• We are also working to establish a docket, where the notes from today’s ses sion will be posted.

• Thank you all for coming and for speaking here today.

Jordan Barab provided the following closing remarks :

• Thanks to all who have joined us here today. This is a very important activity for us.

• We certainly heard your requests for more resident

- friendly and worker

- friendly times. We will work on that. Public input is critically important to us.

EO Public Listening Session Page 36 Washington, DC November 15, 2013Participant Analysis

Stakeholder Group 11/15/2013 Washington, DC

Chemical Producer 8 Ag Supply 3 Chemical Storage 0 State/Local Regulator 2 First Responder 2 Media 1 Owner/Operator 5 Industry Association 19 Labor Organization 7 Federal Representative 29 Environment/Community 14 Consensus Organization 2 Other: Unk 0 Citizen 3 Education 2

Security 2 Vendor 0 State/Local 0 Tribal 0 Health/Research 0 

## TOTAL 99 Conference Call Attend 119

Registered 126 

## Attended (In

- Person & Conf Call) 218

Speakers 32%

EO Public Listening Session Page 37 Washington, DC November 15, 2013