EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 1 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 Notes	from	the Executive	Order	13650	Listening	Session,	Texas

Date: November	5,	2013

Location: College	of	the	Mainland, 1200	Amburn	Road,	Texas	City,	TX
Introduction	and	Opening Remarks

• Patrick	White,	Facilitator ,	made	introductory	remarks :
o R eminded	individuals	on	the	phone	that	they	are	in	listen

- only	and	that W ebinars	are scheduled.

o Eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov is	the	email	for	submission	of	written	comments	to	the E xecutive	order (EO)

. o Announcements	were	made :

 It	was	requested that people	to	set	phones	to	vibrate

.

 It	was	stated	that	the	meeting	is	being	recorded	but	only	for	note

- taking purposes.

 Notes	taken	du ring	the	meeting	will	be	posted	to	the	docket	once	the	Federal Register	Notice	is	published.

o The	purpose	of	this	listening	session	is	to	provide	updates	on	EO	and to receive feedback	from	the	public	regarding	the E xecutive	order

.

• Dr.	Beth	Lewis,	President College	of	the	Mainland ,	welcomed the	group on	behalf	of	the	facility:

o College	of	the	Mainland	is	intensely	interested	in	security	and	being	partners	with	the chemical	industry	due	to its responsibility	of	educating	students

. Many	of	the	College’s students go	on	to	work	in the	chemical	industry

. o Cindy	Lewis ,	College	of	the	Mainland, provided the safety briefing

.

• Eric	Harbin, Department	of	Labor / Occupational	Safety	and	Health	Administration	(DOL/OSHA) Deputy	Regional	Administrator,	Region	6 , welcomed	the group on	behalf	of	DOL :
o Reiterated	the	importance	of	the	working	group	and	interest	in	the	comments.

o Reiterated	the	importance	of	safety	standards	in	the	industry

.

• Amy	Graydon, Department	of	Homeland	Security/	Office	of	Infrastructure	Protection	(DHS/IP) C hief,	Policy	and	Rulemaking	Branch , welcomed	the	group	on behalf	of	DHS :
o Stated	that	Texas	is	an	important	place	to	conduct	these	sessions	due	to	recent	events.

o Commented on the	importance	of	IP	in	the	voluntary	(suite	of	trainings	and	programs) and	regula tory	( Chemical	Facility	Anti

- Terrorism	Standards [ CFATS ] , Ammonium	Nitrate [ AN ] Security	Program) programs	for	the	Chemical	Sector

. o Stated	that review	of	the comments from	the	Ammonium	Nitrate	Security	Program Notice	of	Proposed	Rulemaking is ongoing	and	t hat	responses	to	anything	specific related	to	the	rule	will	be	limited.

o Stated	that	DHS	is	responsible	for	leading	the B est P ractice s W orking G roup and the Information	Collection	and	Sharing	Working	Group

. o Identify	commonalities	between safety , health , eme rgency ,	and security

.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 2 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 • Capt.	Brian	Penoyer,	Coast	Guard (CG) Captain	of	Port	in	Galveston	Bay , welcomed	the	group on behalf	of	USCG :
o Coast	Guard	is	interested	in	seeing	positive	results	from	these	sessions,	specifically those	actions	with	a maritime security nexus
. o Role	as	Federal	on

- scene	coordinator	in	the	coastal	zone.

o CG is both	a	safety	and	security	agency , as	well	as being	involved	in preparedness	and response.
o Want	to	further	advance	operational	coordination	and	information	sharing.

• Michael	O’L ena, Department	of Justice /Alcohol,	Tobacco,	Firearms,	and	Explosives	(DOJ/ATF) Industry	Operations	Investigator/Program	Manager,	Explosives	Industry	Programs	Branch welcomed	the	group on	behalf	of	DOJ :
o ATF is	involved	in	the	EO working	group	due	to	the	role	of	explosives	and	the	chemicals that	make	them.

o Bring	unique	background	in	that	they’ve	been	regulating	explosives	since	the	early ‘ 70s.

o Have	found	that	working	in	coordination	with	the	public	and	industry	is	the	most effecti ve	way	to	enact	and	enforc e regulations	(voluntary	or	otherwise).

o The	comments	said	here	today	will	definitely	be	heard	and	returned	to	the	working groups	for	processing	and	analysis.

• Judith	Canales,	Dep artment of	Agriculture	(USDA)	State	Executive	Directo ry	for	Farm	Service Agency , welcomed	the	group on	behalf	of	USDA :
o Events	in	West,	Texas	drove	home	the	importance	for	understanding	what	occurs	in these	facilities.

o The Farm	Service	reports	help	drive	security	across	the	country

.

 Food , feed , and seed	facil ities	report details on where	feed	seed	is	located	and who	is	responsible	for	such	agriculture	in	the	United	States.

 Fertilizer	reports

. o National	database	is	maintained	in	Kansas	City.

o Agriculture	stakeholders	are	keen	to	make	sure that the USDA	is included	in	the discussion.	Ag riculture and	food	production	are	crucial	to	our	national	security. Summary	and	Progress	to	Date

• Mathy	Stanislaus,	EPA,	Executive	Order	13650	Working	Group	Co

- Chair/Assistant	Administrator, Office	of	Solid	Waste	and	Emergency Response , provided	a	summary	of	the	EO	progress	to	date :
o August	1,	President	Obama	signed	the E xecutive	order.

o Each	agency	has	an	important	role	under	the E xecutive	order.

 OSHA:	Health	and	safety

 ATF:	Post

- blast	investigation

 Environmental	Protection	Agenc y	( EPA ) :	Facility	safety	and	protection	of	human health	and	environment

 DHS:	Security	of	chemical	facilitiesEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 3 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 o Want	to	improve	how	information	is	shared	among F ederal	partners	and	also	with	the regulated	and	public	communities.

o First	of	at	least	five	listeni ng	sessions	around	the	country.	This	includes	D

. C

. sessions	and W ebinars.

o Representatives	from	each	agency	will	be	involved	in	each	listening	session.

o Due	to the government shutdown,	the	Federal	Register	notice	was	delayed.	Apologies are	expressed	for	this ,	but	the	EO	group	intends	to	return	to	Texas	to	give	everyone	who wants	to	attend	a	chance.

o Working	group	goal	is	to	promote	safety	and	security :

 Operational coordination

 Information	sharing	to	modernize	regulation	and	application

 Identify	best	practices

o Parts	of	Exec utive o rder	sectioned	off	with	representatives	from	each	agency :

 Sections 3	and	4:	Improving	Coordination.	Focuses	on i mproving	Federal	and p ublic c oordination :

• Currently	d eveloping	a	plan for how	different	agencies	work	together

.

• How	best	to share CFATS	data	and explosive	materials ’ stored	data

.

• Pilot	program	established	in	EPA	Region	2	using	the	infrastructure	to define	high

- risk	inspection	and	prioritization,	how	best	to	share	data between	agencies	and	first	responders, and	to access	chemica l T ier	2 followings.

 Section	5:	Information	Collection	and	Sharing

• Improve	way that we	collect	and	disseminate	information	among F ederal, S tate,	and	local	entities.

• Create	flexible	data

- sharing	process

.

 Section	6:	Policy	and	Standards	Modernization

• Develop ing	a	proposal for handling	and storing Ammonium	Nitrate

.

• Review	chemicals	covered	by	CFATS,	EPA’s R isk M anagement P rogram (RMP) ,	and	OSHA’s P rocess S afety M anagement	standards (PSM).

• Improving	existing	risk	management	practices

 Section	7: S takeholder O utr each	and I mproving C ollection P ractices

• Collecting	best	practices	that	can	be	implemented	in	the	final	stages	of the E xecutive	order.

• Today’s	listening	session	is	the	first	step	to further section	7’s	goals	to feed	best	practices	to	the	other	sections.

 Existing	Efforts

• Ammonium	Nitrate	Advisory: C hemical A dvisory	provides	lessons learned	for the public	regarding	the	handling	and	processing	of Ammonium	Nitrate

.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 4 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013  D raft	documents	will	be	developed	for	each	section	and	public	solicitation	will be	done.

 April 2014	is	the	goal	to	provide	a	plan	to	the	President	based	on	the	goals	of the E xecutive	order. Listening	Session	Format

• Patrick	White,	Facilitator established	ground	rules	for	the	listening	session :
o Comments	are	asked	to	be	kept	to	the information in	the E xecutive	order.

o Please	respect	each	other’s	opinions.

o In	the	event	that	not	everyone	can	be	heard,	there	will	be	listening	sessions	and	the ability	to	provide	written	comments	to	the	EO	inbox

o Process:

 Each	topic	speaker	will	be	asked	to	sit	in	the	front	ro w.

 As	you	speak in to	the	microphone,	state	your	name,	organization,	and stakeholder	group

.

 Each	topic	will	be	introduced	by	the section chair

.

 Each	speaker	will	have 5 minutes	to	present.	At	the	end	of	the 5 minutes, questions	may	be	asked	by	the F ederal leads	for	clarification	only

.

 Response	and	open	comments	will	occur	after	the	speakers	have	their	time	for 30	minutes	for	each	section. Improving	Operational	Coordination	with	State,	Local,	and	Tribal	Partners.

• Larry	Stanton,	Director,	Office	of	Emergency Management,	EPA , provided	introductory comments regarding	the	status	of	Section	3	and	Section	4	of	the	Executive	Order :
o Coordinating	a	non

- hierarchical	governmental	system	is	a	challenge.	Since	the	West, Texas	fertilizer	disaster, EO	Working	Group	has been making	a	concerted	effort	to	bring F ederal	agencies	that	have	the	ability	together	to	make	some	headway	in	this	apparatus that	supports	safety	and	security	through	operational	coordination.

o First	effort	grew	into pilot	program currently	being	run	in	EPA	R egion	2.

o Remain	focused	on	a	couple of existing	capabilities :

 The	Community	Right	to	Know	Act	offers	an	opportunity	to	manage	information flow	and	the	facility’s	source	points	with	local	responders.

• Local	Emergency	Planning	Committees	( LEPCs ) and	State	Eme rgency Response	Commissions (SERCs) are	a	great	source	of	coordinating information	through	the	multiple	levels	and	groups	responsible	for chemical	safety	and	security

.

 The	s tructure	created	under	national	response	framework ,	specifically	the National	Respo nse	Teams	( NRT ) and	the	Regional	Response	Teams (RRT) , is	a potential	structure that	the	working	group	can	use to	assist	with	response	to S tate	and	local	communities.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 5 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 • M arcos Velez ,	United	Steel	Workers (USW) , stated:

o He	w orks	on	the	Houston	ship	channel.

o B elieves	this E xecutive	order	is	important	to	protecting	those	that	work	directly	with these	chemicals	and	those who live	and	work	in	the	surrounding	communities.	They	are the	people who come	in	contact	with	these	chemicals	and	processes.	There	is	great risk in	handling	these	substances	on	a	day

- to

- day	basis.

o The	OSHA	standard	is	obsolete.	It	was	put	out	many	years	ago.	Safety	is	not	put	first, and	the	well

- being	of	the	surrounding	communities is not	the	most	important	part	of the	standard.

o The	one

- size

- f its

- all	approach	is	typically	not	applicable,	but	updating	the	process	and the Process	Safety	Management	( PSM ) standard	is	greatly	beneficial	to	those	working and	living	in	these	communities.

o Texas	is	a	good	place	to	start	due	to	the	large	amount	of	people handling	these chemicals.

• Chris	Sharp,	United	Steel	Workers (USW), commented:

o There	needs	to	be	some	change , and	the	Executive order is	a	good	start.

o Dislikes	that the G overnment	is more	reactive	rather	than	proactive.

o Multiple	disasters	show	this , inclu ding	West,	Texas	and	the	fire	in	Louisiana.	He	is	a	first responder	to	fires	and	other	accidents.	The	better	prepared	they	are,	the	safer	they	are.

o He	is	also	a	first	responder	for	the	USW	to	take	care	of families after	accidents	and deaths.

• John	Durkay,	G eneral	Council,	Industrial	Safety	Training	Council (ISTC) , remarked:

o ISTC	is 1 of	28	reciprocal	training	councils.

o 23	years	ago,	ISTC	started	delivering	basic	orientation	safety	training.	Activity	resulted	in the	cataloging	and	credentialing	of	800,000	wo rkers	working	in	the	industry.

o 12	years	ago,	ISTC	was	asked	by	local	industry	to	explain	the	role that these	councils have regarding homeland	security.

o Has a system	that	does	background	screening	and	has	been	successful	and	accepted	by industry.

o ISTC	work ed	with	the DHS Office	of	Infrastructure	Protection	on	Risk	Based	Performance Standard (RBPS 12 ) .	ISTC	has	been	involved	in	fine

- tuning	RBPS	12 , specifically	the development	of	recurrent	vetting	methodologies.

o Also has been	an	OSHA	service	provider	for process	safety	management.

o In	each	case,	they’ve	reached	out	to	the	regulatory	community	on	a	regular	basis	and would	like	to	continue	to	do	so.

o Also	has an escort	training	program	for	the	USCG.

o Look	forward	to	continuing	the	dialogue	regarding personnel	s urety with F ederal agencies.

• Edwin	Cannon, Baker	Hughes , and	member	of Institute	of	Makers	of	Explosives stated:

o He	is	a Quality	Manager	at	Baker	Hughes

.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 6 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 o IME	recommends	that	any	proposal	under	the	EO	to	expand Process	Safety Management ( PSM ) to	cover	blast ing	agents	and/or	AN	be	rejected.

o Another	layer	of	regulation	will	not	do	anything	to	enhance	workplace	safety	or	security.

o Security	sensitive	information	about the storage	of	explosive	materials	would	be	shared in	an	open	forum	too	easily	( Local	Emergency Planning	Committee	[ LEPC ] program).

o Support s sharing	information	about	operations	directly	with	emergency	responders	that serve	the	local	community

. o Support s vetting	of	personnel	in	security	backgrounds,	but	many F ederal	programs	need to	be	coordinated	be tter.	Vetting	done	under	one	program	should	be	pooled	and	shared with	other	programs.

o Industry	is	data	driven,	and	best	practices	require	access	to	reliable	data.	Until	recently, ATF	provided	data	sets	on	explosive	thefts,	losses,	and	recovery. U rge s the ATF	to reinstitute	the	practice	of	sharing	these	data	sets	on	an	annual	basis.

o OSHA	standards	from	the ‘ 70s	need	to	be	updated	in	favor	of	the	PSM	standard.	Update to	the	general	duty	clause.

• Sharon	Stewart,	Public	Citizen , remarked:

o Here	to	talk	about	Fre eport,	TX.

o D ow Chemical in	Freeport,	TX has	a	deep	water	port, a	liquefied	natural	gas	( LNG ) facility,	and	there	are	only	850,000	in	the	county,	but	it	is	bigger	than	Rhode	Island.	It’s the	next	county west of	Galveston	and south of	Houston.

o In	2003,	al

- Qaeda	investigated two places	in	Texas	as	potential	targets	(Bush	Ranch	and Freeport,	TX).

o Displayed a	map	of	the	area:

 The	l argest strategic	petroleum	reserve is	located	at Brian	Mound

.

 Dow	encompasses	11	square	miles,	62	production	plants,	an d	very	many	port berths.

 If	an	attack	at	the	LNG	facility	occurred,	the	ship	channel	would	be	blocked.

 An	accident	at	DOW	could	create	a	chain	reaction	that	could	blow	multiple communities	off	the	face	of	the	earth.

 BASF	has ammonia tanks	at	the	port.

 Dow ships	49%	of	its	product	by	water,	29%	by	rail.	The	rest is	shipped by chemical	tanker	truck	and	pipeline.

 Freeport	and	Texas	City	are	“pipeline	cities

. ”

 LNG	facility	is	being	re

- built	as	an	export	facility.

o She	serves	on	the	local	emergency	planning	comm ittee.	It	is	a	good	vehicle.	The	LEPCs were	created	right	after	the	act	was	passed.	They	have	no	money,	but	they	still	accept the Toxic	Release	Inventory	( TRI ) data,	so	there	is	no	reason that they	couldn’t	accept other	data.

o Also	served	in	National R espon se	Team	mapping	oil	spills.

o Is	greatly	concerned	about	these	things.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 7 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 o 79%	of	our	national	petrochemical	capacity	exists	between	Baton	Rouge	and	Corpus Christi

.

• Melanie	Oldman,	Physical	Therapist,	Citizens	for	Clean	Air	and	Clean	Water , stated:

o Lives	in	Free port,	TX

. o There	are	no	fence line	monitors,	no	good	warning	system	for	public, and no	800 number	for	environment	complaints	or	concerns	when	issues	occur.

o Mentioned specific	companies :

 Gulf	Chemical	and	Metallurgical	Company:	They	are	a	recycler	of	dirty spent catalyst	from	oil	refineries.

 Repeat	offender	of	pollution	and	policy	standards.

 Recently	fined	7.5	million	dollars;	however,	the	money	stayed	in	Austin,	and	the community	did	not	receive	any	amount	of	the	fines	to	improve	issues.

 Federal	Title	5	per mit	was	received	on	September	5,	2013	without	scrutiny because	proper	channels	were	not	notified.

 Not	reporting	Benzene	streams.

o D ow Chemical

 Has 10 ,000 employees	and	contractors.

 They	have	their	own	fire	company.	Community	does	not	understand	the	fire	and health	issues	occurring	because	information	is	not	readily	shared.

 Building	world’s	largest	chlorine	plant. The	community	d o es not	have knowledge	of	the	chemicals	that	will	be	used	in	production.

o Need	better	processes	to	improve	chemical	safety.

o Requesti ng	EPA	to	get	involved	with	improving	chemical	safety.

o Freeport	officials	think	that	a	CARE	system	operated	by	a	third	party	would	be	the	best method.	It	should	not be operated	by	chemical	producers.

o We live	in an	area	that	is	important,	and	people	in this community	deserve	safety	and security	through	better	coordination.

• During	the	o pen c omment p eriod , the	following	attendees	spoke :
o David	Popov,	Emergency	Management	Coordinator	for	Galveston	County , commented:

 Section	3	of	the	EO	is	important ; how	do	we	ge t	info rmation to	responders ?

 Appreciates	the	effort	of	the	EPA	and	the g overnment	as	partners	in	this EO

.

 As	a	responder	of	over	32	years,	how	do	we	realistically	share	this	information? This	is	important.

 After	reading after	action reports,	this	is	a	comm on	message	being	stated	by many	groups.

 Traveled	across	the	country,	a	lot	of	information	that	is	compiled	by	the	LEPCs	is limited	to	the	first	responder.

 Encourages	that	this	committee	explore	this	particular	section.

o Hillary	Porgi,	researcher	with Public	Citizen , commented:EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 8 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013  Work s with	communities	in the eastern	port	area

. Many	in	the	community	are concerned	about	chemical	production	and	pipelines.

 We	need	safer	chemicals	and	processes , especially	in	locations	that	border parks	and	schools	in	the	com munity.

 Agrees	with	the	goal	of	disclosure	rules,	and	they	need	to	be	enforced	better.

 Public	Citizen	may	be	releasing	a	report	in	the	future	about	the	state	of	LEPCs. They	suffer	from	a	lack	of	funding.

 There	needs	to	be	an	overhaul	of	right

- to

- know	laws. The	information	is	not being	distributed	to	the	proper	people who react	to	security	and	safety	issues.

o Panel	question	from Mr. Stanislaus: W hich	statute was	the	presenter referencing	when talking	about	the	General	Duty	Clause ?

 T he	presenter	did	not	know	t he	exact	statute	when	referencing	the	General Duty	Clause	during	his	speaking	time.

o Mr. Harbin	said	that	a	couple of people	mentioned	LEPCs	that	are	underfunded.	This	is the	case	in	Texas,	but	not	everywhere.	EPA	is	interested	in this information	and in
co mment s regarding	how	funding	challenges	can	be	addressed.

o There	was	a	question	to	David	Popov	and	group regarding	working	with	first	responders and	LEPCs

. In	many cases, LEPCS only	meet	where	industry	is	driving	the	effort.	EPA wants	to	find	a	common	groun d	where	industry	is	included,	the	public	is	included, and
co
- opting	is	not	occurring.

 David	Popov ’s	response :	LEPCs	are	unique.

• He	provided the history surrounding LEPC s	in	Galveston	County,	TX

. The
c ounty	decided	they	needed	3	LEPCs.	They	are	funded	in different	ways (HAZMAT permitting,	local	industry,	503c organizations )

• Tier II data	from	EPA	is	important	to	the	LEPC	(in	a	usable	format).	They survive	on	donations. The Texas	Admin istration C ode	states	that	these donations	have	to	go	through	county	commi ssioner	court.

• Community	is	#1, and local	responders	and	local	stakeholders	must	be included.

• M ention ed	the National	Response	Framework as	a model	and	stated that e mergencies	are	local

. LEPCs	should	be	able	to	handle	the emergencies	and data because	the	d ata	provided	is	best	understood	by the	community.

 John	Durkay ’s	comments :

• Southeast Texas	LEPCs	work	a	little	differently

. Everybody	is	a	player. With	two	caveats:

o Three	counties	work	together	as	opposed	to	a	single	county working	under a single	LEPC.

o Cou ncil	of	Governments	has	a	permanent	LEPC	support committee	on	top	of	LEPCsEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 9 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013  Sharon	Stewart ’s	comments:

• LEPC	has	a	mobile	command center .	This	is	especially	important	for hurricane	response.

• How	many	companies	are	planning	for	sea	level	rise?	Dow	is	looking into	this	and	are	putting	sea	level	rise	in	all	of	their	models.

• Should	think	that	this	could	be	a	requirement	to	security	and	safety where	necessary.

• If	Hurricane	Isaac	had	hit	2	miles	south,	it	would	have	been	5	times	as damaging.
Enhanced	Information	Co llection	and	Sharing

• Amy	Graydon ,	DHS, provided	introductory	comments	regarding	the	status	of	Section	5	of	the Executive	Order :
o First	deliverable	is	the	90

- day	request analyzing and recommending	possible non
compliant	facility	data sharin g
o Worked	with	colleagues	to	get	a	solid	understanding	of	the	as

- is	in	regards	to the regulations,	authorities, and databases	that	each	agency	holds.

o Looked	at	current	data

- sharing	efforts

. o This analysis has	highlighted	that some data	is	redundant	and has	bee n collected multiple	times.

o There	is	confusion	regarding	facility	information	from	one	collection	point	to	another (address,	facility	name,	etc).	This	causes difficulties wh en	trying	to	match data.

o Group	is	looking	at	ways	to	better	link	databases,	potenti ally	looking	at	using	a	unique identifier	to	do	this. The EO	Working	Group	would	like	feedback	on	that.

o Open	to	many	ideas	on	how	this	can	be	better	coordinated	and how a	common taxonomy can	be	created across	multiple	partner	stakeholders.

o Also	want	to	bet ter	understand	requirements	of S tate	and	local	stakeholders,	and	how they	want/need	to	receive	this	information.

• Bob	Johnson,	Environmental	Affairs	Manager,	Lennox	International, I nc. , remark ed :
o P rovided	binders with	EPLAN	information to	panel.

o His	main	purpose	is	to	increase	awareness	of	EPLAN	and	also to request	that	the working	group strongly	consider	continuing	EPLAN	as	a	data	repository	for	the	Tier II data

. He	is	with	the	EPLAN	user	group

. o It	was	created	a	decade	ago , evolving from	the	desktop	submittal	tool.	EPLAN	is	a W eb

based	tool	for	submitting T ier II reports. It	a lso	provides	access	to	this	data	of	chemicals stored	at	facilities	across	the	U

. S.

o It	was	defunded	recently.	The	funding	was	passed	from	EPA	to	DHS.

o As	a	user wi th	facilities	in	several S tates ,	it	is	challenging	to	use	different	system s to submit	these	reports	(Tier II ) .	They	preferred	to	have	a	“national	standard”	type	ofEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 10 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 reporting.	Even	in S tates	where	it	wasn’t	required,	their	company	still	used	EPLAN	as	a data repository for formatting.	It	is	preferred	to	have	a	central	location.

o University	of	Texas	at	Dallas	hosts	the	EPLAN	software	and	has	a	way	to	bridge	the interim	period	of	funding	loss.

o Encourages	the	group	to	continue	funding	and	using	the	EPLAN	tool.

o Th ere	are	stakeholders who would	like	to	increase	the	functionality	of	the	tool	but who are	hesitant	to	move	forward	without	dedicated	funding.

o Goal	is	to	pool	resources	and	to	coordinate	under	a	single	tool.

o Binder	and	handouts	address	case	studies	and	situ ations.	Defunding	is	causing	a fracturing	of	efforts.

• Katherine	Rodriguez,	United	Support	and	Memorial	for	Workplace	Fatalities , comment ed

o Her	organization	is	c omprise d	of a	group	of	family	members	who	lost	someone	in	a workplace	incident.

o Father	was	kille d	at	a	BP	refinery	when	a	line	burst	and	scalded	him. He	w as	sent	to	the hospital	burn	unit ,	but died	2 1/2 months	later	from	his	injuries.

o Upon	loss,	story	was	shared	with	other	families,	mostly	with	first	responders.

o Workplace	safety	applies	to	everyone.

o US	Chemical	Safety	Board	has investigated	the	West,	TX	incident.	The	chairperson	said : “The West	incident	showed	a	glaring	need	for	comprehensive	regulation	of	reactive chemical	hazards... The	loss	of	life	was	horrible. ”

o The	facility	in	West	had	not	been	inspected	since	1985.	At	OSHA’s	current	staffing	levels, it	would	take OSHA 150	years	to	inspect	every	workplace	in	Texas	alone	just	once.

o It’s	not	just	employees	and	first	responders	that	were	lost	at	West,	but	community members	respond ing to	these	incidents.

o Applauds	the	efforts	to	build up on	OSHA’s	responsibility	in	this	working	group.	Goal needs	to	be	focused	on	protecting	these	family	members.	Process	safety	standards	need to	be	the	focus.

• Grace	Cagle,	Texas	Environmen tal	Justice	Advocacy	Service (TEJAS) , remark ed :
o Ms.	Rodriguez’s	c omments	were	very	good.

o Register ed support	for	this	Executive order

. o Data	can	be	hard to	obtain	and	analyze ,	but	it	is	a	job	that	has	to	get	done.

o She	has	a	degree	in	Biology	and	Chemistry	fr om	North	Texas.

o Upon	moving	here, she was surprised by	the	quantities	of	chemicals	stored	in	locations near	community	places.	The se type s of	storage	and	quantities	would	not	occur	in	her labs.

o Showed	a	map	displaying high

- risk	communities:	it	tends	to	be	f ocused	on	low

- income
areas.
o EO	12898 (Executive	Order	12898 , February	11,	1994:	Federal	Actions	To	Address Environmental	Justice	in	Minority	Populations	and	Low

- Income	Populations) challengedEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 11 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 F ederal	agencies	to	look	at	the	risk	put	on	low

- income	communiti es. Twenty years	later , we	still	see	communities	facing	these	risks.

o Challenges	the	EPA	to	provide	more	justice	to	those	at

- risk	families	and	communities.

o Feels	this	should	have	been	handled	in	1994.

• Raven	Penya,	TEJAS stated:

o Agrees	with Ms.	Cagle

. o We	need	to	improve	our	standards	for	hazardous	chemicals,	especially	for	areas involving communities	of	color	and	other	low

- income	communities.

o Stricter enforcement and more regulation	on	toxic	chemicals	is	desired.

o One	community	in particular ,	Manchester, has	a	number	of	chemicals :

 Benzene

 Propylene

 Ethylene

 Nitrate	compounds

 Sulfur	dioxide

 Carbon	monoxide

o Workers,	first	responders, and community	members	a re	exposed	to	these	chemicals	on a	daily	basis.

o We	are	lucky	that	most	of	us are	not as affected	by	t hese	chemicals	as	other	people	are.

• During	the	open	comment	period , the	following	attendees	spoke :
o Juan	Carlos,	Director	of	Environmental	Justice	and	Health	Alliance , commented:

 Reiterating	comments	from Ms.	Cagle	and	Ms.	Penya

.

 Wants	to	include	that	they are	also	looking	at	chemicals	plants,	rail	traffic,	and tractor	trailer	transportation	of	hazardous	chemicals.

 Their	community	has	134	rail	crossings	carrying	hazardous	cargo.

 Greenpeace	did	a	study	to	show	how	easy	it	is	to	cause	damage by exploiting thes e	transporter	abilities.

 He	will	have	other	comments	at	a	later	time	but	wants	to	also	call	attention	to freight	transport.

o Jim	Lefton,	Assistant	to	Director	of	United	Steel	Workers	in	District	13 , commented:

 He	represents	members	across	many	sectors	in the	economy.

 Ha s spent	4

– 5	years	trying	to	convince the	G overnment	that	regulations	need	to be	changed.	They	are	old,	outdated,	and	there	needs	to	be	real	change	made.

 Systems	to	share	and	gather	information are good,	but	workers	are	being injured	and	killed. The Government	needs	to	pay	attention	to	the	worker	first.

 Have	not	heard	anything	about	the	ability	of	industry	to	move	from	some chemicals	to	safer	technologies.	There	are	much	safer technologies in	the ref ining	industry,	but	they	refuse	to	move	toward	them	due	to	costs.

 Safer	technology	will	prevent	many	of	these	accidents.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 12 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013  One	of	the	largest	concentrations	of	hydrofluoric	acid	is	5	miles	down	the	road from	our	current	location.

• Feels	that	no	one	is	paying attention	to	that.

• Listed	additional	locations	of	hydrofluoric	acid	around	the	area.

• A	small	leak	in	Corpus	Christi	would	eliminate	2/3	of	the	community.

 USW	is	here	to	talk	about	the	PSM	standard	and	is	also here to	talk	about	more meaningful	worker	parti cipation	in	these	standards	going	forward,	establish ing more	effective	process	standards	using	scientists	not	connected	to	the	oil industry.

• In	2013,	there	are	still	companies	that do not	allow	worker s to participate	in	an	accident	investigation.

 Would	als o	like	to	hear	work	on	worker	and	community	involvement	in emergency	responses.	This	should	include	local	first	responders.

• Sometimes	in	rural	communities,	first	responders	do	not	know	what exists	inside	some	of	those	gates	when	responding.

o Hank Gomez, Pub lic	Citizen,	Texas	City,	TX , remark ed :

 He	h as	been	a	longtime	worker	and	supporter	of	the	petrochemical	industry.

 Worked	as	a	layman	to	operations	to	a	chemical	analyst. Has	also	had	a	small subcontracting	company	that	has	worked	in	the	industry.

 Wants	to	ask	a	question: How	is	the environmental	exposure	to	the	citizens	of Texas	City being monitored?

• Mayor	does	not	want monitoring to	occur

.

• 55,000	people	filed	a	c lass

- action	lawsuit	has	been	filed	to	make	sure monitoring	occurs.

 H e	supports	this	in dustry	but	wants	better	monitoring

.

 He	also	wants	more	information	about	exposure	results	communicated	to	the public.

o John	Deans,	Greenpeace	USA, commented:

 On i nformation s haring: The CFATS p rogram	has	an	incredibly	rich	of	data	that	is not	available	to	t he	public	of	the	industry	stakeholder	group;	specifically,	those 3,000	facilities that	have	tiered	out	of	the	program.

 We	don’t	know which technologies	companies	have	employed	to	become	safer (tiered	out).	This	info rmation should	be	made	available	to	the	p ublic.

 On	the	EPA	side	of	things,	it’s	unfortunate	that	offsite	consequence	analysis	and risk	management	plans	are	not	available	to	the	public.

o Yudith	Nieto,	Public	Citizen	from	Manchester,	TX , stated:

 Wants	to	echo	John	Deans	on	the	importance	of	sharing information	with	the public.

 Spoke	about recent	events on Oct ober 23,	2013 early	in	the	morning .	There were	three	explosions	in	the	community	that	shook	the	house. Residents dealEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 13 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 with	this	regularly	but do	not	receive	reports	about the	location and	cause	o f the	noise.

• She	called	two	refineries,	but	they	could	not	tell	her	what	was	wrong	or occurring.	Valero’s	responses	were	confusing,	and	she	is	worried	that their	information	is	poor	as	well.

 A	f irst	responder	told	her	to	contact	him	if	she	learns	about anything	that	may help	him	do	his	job.

 She’s	worried	that	essential	information	that	affects	the	public	really	needs	to be	enforced	to	be	shared.

o Clarifications	from	the	panel:

 Question	from Mr. Stanislaus	to Mr. Johnson : I s	he	suggesting	that	EPLAN	is	to be	a	privatized	system	with	a	consistent	national	standard?	What	is	his	next	step suggestion?

• Mr. Johnson	response:	it	should	be	similar	to T ier2 S ubmit.	This	year’s budget	is $ 900 ,000 ,	and	is	probably	not	enough	money	to	maintain	the program.
o Many	first	re sponders	use	the	EPLAN	web	portal	to	understand risks	at	the	location	when	responding. However,	h e’s	not	an expert	on	the	responder	side.

o University	of	Texas

– Dallas	has	worked	out	a	user	pay	scheme, but	other S tates are	not	interested	in others	to pay	mo re.
o A	permanent	home	with	Federal	funding	would	be	best.

o They	are	currently	enhancing	the	functionality	of	the	system through	private	funding,	but F ederal	funding	will	establish	a common	approach.

 Mr. Stanislaus	to Mr. Lefton:	As	part	of	the	EO,	we	are	loo king	at	safer alternatives	in	a	best	practice	kind	of	way.	Does	he	have	any	specific suggestions?

• There	are	at	least	three	different	companies	that	produce	a	catalyst	that is	safe	to	use	in	the	refining	process.	Would	provide	contacts	to	the	EO and	those	c ompanies.

 Mr. Stanislaus	question	to Mr. Deans: What	is	your	proposal to	share	the	Risk Management	Plan	offsite	consequence analysis?

• Mr.	Dean’s response: Information is currently	available	in	reading rooms,	but one can only look	at 10	facilities	at	a	tim e	once	a	month.	It	is difficult	to	view	this	data	using	this	method.	He	would	like	to	see	this data	accessible	through W eb	access	as	needed.	This	would	make	it much	more	available	to	communities	living	with	these	risks.

• Mr.	Stanislaus asked a follow

- up que stion

. Mr

. Deans used the	following
as an	example.	If	a	person	lives	15	miles	from	a	chlorine	facility,	he	orEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 14 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 she	might	not	know	that	this	release	or	explosion	could	affect	them. This	information	is	not	readily	available	or	known	to	be	available.
Patrick	W hite	wrapped	up	the	morning	session	by	dismissing	everyone	for	lunch. The	g roup	returned	from	lunch	and was	welcomed	back	by	Patrick	White. A	brief	review	of	the remaining	agenda	was	provided , along	with	a	request that each	commenter	remain	at	the microphone to	answer	any	questions	from	the	panel. Policy,	Regulations,	and	Standard	Modernization

• Lisa	Long,	Director,	Office	of	Engineering	Safety ,	OSHA provided	introductory	comments regarding	the	status	of	Section	6	of	the	Executive	Order :
o This	section of	the	EO	is	divided	into	multiple	sections :

 6 .a – Working	together	to	develop	options	to	improve	chemical	safety	and security. I deas	have	been	exchanged to	develop	a proposal

. The	EO requires that	during	the	second	90	days , the Working	Group	is engaging stakeholders and	discuss ing the	ideas	developed.	Still	want	to	take	stakeholder s’ input	for	the initial	work.

 6 .a. ii

– Requires	that	in	the	second 90

- day	period , stakeholder s are	engaged	to discuss	the	ideas	developed for	6.a

. We	will	plan	additional	meetings	to	discuss our	findings	and to gain	feedback	from	our	stakeholders.

 6 .b

– Relates	to	Ammonium	Nitrate	( AN ) safety

. There	are	several	agencies	with jurisdiction s concerning	AN,	who	are	working	together	to	develop	options	to improve	safety	and	security

. We	are	interested	in	hearing	anything that anyone has	to	say	concerning	AN	safety	and	security

. We	know that there	are	issues with	the	various	grades	of	AN	used , and	we	are	interested	in	how	safety practices	may	differ	accordingly

.

 6 .c – This	section	addresses the	use	of	RMP	and	PSM	with OSHA and EPA

. It	asks both	agencies	to	consider	whether	to	expand	these	programs	to	cover additional	substances	and	types	of	ha zards

. We	are	looking	for	more	input	on best	practices,	as	well	as on	which hazards	and	substances	should	be	included	in the	standards.

 6 .d

– This	is	a DHS	activity	regarding the	development	of a	list of chemicals , including	toxics	and	reactives.

 6 .e – Re quires OSHA to	issue	a	Request	for	Information	( RFI ) for	the	PSM Standard

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

. When the	RFI	is	issued,	it	will	include	a	set	of	specific	questions

. We	ask	that commenters respond	to	those	questio ns,	and	those	answers	will	become	part	of the	docket.

o All	of	these	areas	overlap	and	relate

. We	are	interested	in	specifics:	practices, substances, and content	of	the	standards.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 15 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 • Hilton	Kelly,	Founder	of	Community In

- Power and	Development	Association , comm ented:

o Association	is	located	in	Port	Arthur,	Texas

. o S erved	on	the	Environmental	Justice	Advisory	Council	to	the	EPA.

o C urrently	serving	as	the	Regional	Health	Equity	Council	in	Region	6,	under	the	office	of Minority	Health	at Health	and	Human	Services (HHS)

. o If	we	can	find	a	way	to	get	our F ederal	and S tate	government s to	enforce	the	policies	of the present	regulations	and	policies	within	the C lean A ir A ct, we	could make	great strides.

o What	we’ve	seen	in	our	communities	and	other	localities	is	a	serious lack	of enforcement	of	the	laws	currently	on	the	books. If	we	could	somehow	find	a	way	to	get
our S tate	and F ederal	government s to	work	together	to	agree	that	something	needs	to be	done , we can improve air	quality	and can save the	lives	of	thousands	of	p eople throughout	the	county. There	is	a	lack	cohesiveness ,	especially	as	it	relates	to F ederal and S tate	agencies	working	together

. o Here	in	Texas,	the	Texas	Commission	of	Environmental	Quality	is	constantly	fighting	the F ederal G overnment	when	it	comes	to enforcing	laws	that	are	on	the	books

. I	would	like to	u rge	the F ederal G overnment	to	step	up , protect ing those	living	in S tates	that	refuse to work	with	the F ederal G overnment	and enforc ing the	law.

o Every	year	we	lose	thousands	of	individuals	to	toxic	chem ical	exposure

. D r.	Marvin Gator	did	a symptom	survey	in	2002	regarding	exposures	in	various	parts	of	Texas

. They de termined causation between	chemical	exposure	and	sickness

. I	personally	know between	10

- 20	individuals	who	have	had	these kinds	of illnesses.

o Many	facilities	are	operating	with	antiquated	equipment

. Some	are	grandfathered	to some	degree

. The	s tandards	should	include requirements	for annual	or	semi

- annual inspections	and	require facilities	to	perform equipment	upgrades.

• John	Deans,	Greenpeac e US A , commented:

o Thank	you	for the	work	you	are	doing	and	for having	these	listening	sessions

. It	is critical for	communities	and non
- governmental	organizations to	share	their	opinions.

o R epresent	several constituencies :

 Myself

– 1 of over 100	million people who	are	in	the	danger	zone	of	hazardous chemical	release.

 Greenpeace

– Representing	our	200 ,000 members	nationwide.

 Coalition	to	Prevent	Chemical	Disasters

– A	national	coalition	of	over	100 organizations	representing	workers	at	chemical	facilities,	enviro nmental	justice communities,	public	health	experts,	national	security	experts , and	other representatives	of	the	public	interest.

o The	timing	and	short	notice	of	this	event	has	made	it	difficult	for	communities	to	be involved

. We	would	appreciate	more	notice for	future	listening	sessions

. Also,	while	it	is great	for	people	on	the	phone	to	be	able	to	listen to the	session,	it	would	be	great	if ,	in future	sessions, they	could	be	allowed	to	ask	questions.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 16 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 o According	to a November 2012	Congressional	Research	Survey	of RMP	data,	there	are more	than 12,000 facilities in	the	RMP.	These	are	facilities that report	that , in	the	event of	a	release	or	explosion,	they	could	have	offsite	consequences	to	the	community	or	the environment

. By	o ur	calculations, 473 of	these	facilities put	more	than	100,000	citizens at	risk

. That’s more	than	100 million people,	or	more	than	1/3	of	the	population.

o Lives in	Denver	but	attended the Texas	session because	there	is	not	a	listening	session	in Denver

. There	are 24	facilities	in Denver that	are	in	the	RMP	program

. I’m	driving	and living	around	these	facilities	every	day

. Some	of	these	facilities	carry	chemicals	like anhydrous	ammonia,	chlorine,	and	sulfur	dioxide.

o Denver	does	have	a	success	story

. KIK	In ternational,	a	chlorine	manufacturer,	is	now using	a	formula	from	a	Texas

- based	company	to	do	their	bleach	process	instead	of	using chlorine	gas

. T hey	are	using	a	brine	to	bleach	process ; it’s	a	safer	technology

. They	have removed	rail	cars	of	chlorine	ga s	from	their	site , which	used	to	endanger	more	than 1 million people	in	the	City	of	Denver

. This	is	a	positive	step,	but	this	is	only 1 of	what
were 25	facilities	in	Denver;	it	represents	the	exception,	not	the	rule

. o On	July	25,	2012,	50	organizations	pet itioned	EPA to	use	their	authority under the	Clean Air	Act,	section 112R

- 7A, to	create	a	rulemaking

. This	is	a	piece	of	authority	sitting	on the	shelf	right	now	that	EPA	could	implement to	require	facilities	to	use	safer alternatives

. This	would	encourage industry	to	complete	the	switches	that	we’re	talking about

. This	policy	type	has	been	endors ed	by	many,	including	former	EPA administrators , the National	Environmental	Advisory	Council, national	security	experts, and	others

. The	EPA	and	DHS	have	encouraged these	kinds	of	reforms	during their	own congressional	testimony.

o Regarding	Ammonium	Nitrate

– there	are	safer	technologies

. There	are	safer	ways	to use	and	store	ammonium	nitrate.

o Panel	Question from Mr. Stanislaus to	Mr.	Deans :	How could	the safer	technologies you referenced be	implemented , considering	the	diversity	of	the	industry?

 Mr.	Deans’ s response : One	of	the	key	items	of	our	petition	is	to require	safer alternatives	based on feasibility

. It’s	n ot	prescriptive,	but it	is	a	way	to evalua te industry	and	determine	if	there	are	other	safer	alternatives	in	the	market	today. For	example,	if the	KIK	facility	has a	safer	way	to	make sodium	hypochlorite , then	it should	be	doing	that	at	all	of	their	facilities;	so	should	others

. If	you	put forward a	regulation stating	that companies	must	use	the	safest	possible alternative,	it	will	create	the	market	incentive	for	everyone	to	get	onboard

. If	a company	is	able	to	implement	a	safer	technology	at	one	facility,	they	should	be able	to	implement	the	same change	at	similar	facilities.

o Panel	Question	from Mr. Stanislaus to	Mr.	Deans : Are	you	thinking something along	the lines to what	New	Jersey	has	done ?

 Mr.	Deans’ s response :	New	Jersey	is	an	example, but	part	of	the	problem	in New	Jersey	is that it’s	based primarily	upon	information

. Agencies	like	DHS	haveEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 17 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 information	concerning	facilities	that	have	switched	to	safer	alternatives

. We need	to	take	steps	to	require	that	industry	utilize	the	safer	alternatives

. o Panel	Question from Mr. Harbin to	Mr.	Deans : Did you	have	anything	more	specific regarding	your	comments to	updating	the	PSM	standard?		What	additional information do	you	have	for	the	safer	handling	of Ammonium	Nitrate ?

 Mr.	Deans’ s Response :	We	are	a	member	of	a	coalition of	several	members, including	steelworkers,	and	I	would	defer	to	them	regarding	the	safer	handling of	AN

. Regarding	the	improvement	of	the	PSM,	we	want	EPA	to	ensure	that	the P	(Process)	part	is	the	safest	it	can	be

. Regarding Ammonium	Nitrate ,	there	is
a nother	product	in	use	in	Europe	that is	a	diluted	form	of	AN and that	does	not have	the	same	explosive	characteristics

. This	is	an	example	of	a	safer alternative : the	same	chemical	with	a	different	make

- up.

• The	moderator	reminded	the	group	that	we will	acc ept	written	comments. Please	send	any comments	to eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

.

• A	q uestion	from	the audience	concerning	h ow	comments would	be	docketed

. Amy	Graydon clarified	by	stating	that	when comments are	received ,	they	will	be	shared	with	the	working group	and will	be posted	to	the	docket,	attributed	to	the	author.

• Perry	Graham, Texas	Environmental	Justice	Advocacy	Services	( TEJAS ), commented:

o R esident	of	Houston,	in	the	greater second ward,	just	a	few	miles	from several	chemical facilities.

o In	Texas,	w e	have	more	than	100	facilities	that	endanger	more	than	100,000	people

. Research	indicates	that	t hese	appear	to be	located	in	lower	income	communities	and communities	of color.

o To	deal	with	the	threats,	we	need	requ irements	for	safer	chemicals	and	processes

. EPA has	the	authority	to	do	this.

o EPA	produced	recommendations	more	than	10	years	ago,	but	they	have	not	acted	to implement	them.

o The	threat	is	not only limited	to	facilities	but is also	associated with chemicals in	transit

. The	number	of	trucks	and	rail	cars	bringing	toxic	chemicals	through	the	east	end	means that	it	is	not	a	question	of	IF,	but	rather	WHEN	a	spill	or	accident	will	occur.

o The	r equirements	need	to	be enforceable

. There	need	to	be	sufficient	resour ces for regular	inspections;	there	need	to	be	enough	regulators	in	the	field,	and	regulators	need adequate	training

. o The	West	Texas	incident	exposed	gaps	in many regulation s which have	already	been elaborated	by	others	better	than	I	could	do	here

. This	un derscores	the	need	for	you	to seriously	consider	buffer	zone	requir e ments	and the relocation	needs	of	those	in proximity to	facilities

. o Thank	you	for	having	this	hearing	today	on	the	Gulf	Coast	and	in	Texas

. Please	note	that today’s	event	is	taking	place during	the	work	day	and	on	an	election	day

. There	areEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 18 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 many	community	members	who	could	not	be	here	today	as	a	result

. Please	take	this into	account	during	further	listening	sessions.

• Juan	Parras,	TEJAS , remarked:

o We	have	some	coalition	members	located	thro ughout	the N ation

. With	the	short	notice given	regarding	the	date	of	this	meeting,	we	sent	out	a	letter	to	our	members	and	asked for	their	support

. W e	have	35	groups	that	have	signed	onto our letter

. I	have	copies	for the	group

. ( Mr.	Parras distributed a h ard

- copy	to	panel

. )

o An E xecutive	order that	someone	mentioned	earlier	was passed	in	1994

. Since	the n , there	have	been	many communities that	have	been	pushing	for	chemical	security

. This is	not	a	new	issue ;	rather, it’s	an	issue	that	has	been	going	on	since	the E xecutive	order of	1994

. In	2011,	the E xecutive	order	also	created the National	Environmental	Justice Advisory	Committee	(NEJAC)

. That C ommittee	used	to	meet	every	3 months

. I	believe	it may now only	meet	onc e	per	year
. In	2011,	the NEJAC board	met	in	Albuquerque,	New Mexico,	and	we	submitted	a	coalition	representing	more	than	300	organizations, requesting to	address	chemical	security

. The	NEJAC	board	submitted	the	issue	to	EPA, which	started	a	series	of	meeti ngs	with	EPA,	DHS,	and	DOJ

. We’ve	been	meeting	ever since,	over	a	period	of	nearly	2	years,	with	what	appears	to	be	a	tremendous	amount	of support

. However,	over	time,	it	appeared	that	this	was	becoming	a	dead	issue	with	the resignation	of EPA	Secretary Li sa	Jackson

. But	then	the	incident	in	West,	Texas	took place

. We	are	pleased	that	this	issue	has	gained	the	interest	of	the	President	and	that this	Executive order has	been	issued.

o There	was very	short notice	of	this	meeting

. In	the	future,	please	consider evening meetings

. We	would	like	you	to	come	back	to	Houston	and	hear	from	more	people.

o Houston	is	known	as	the	gas	and	oil	capitol	of	the	nation,	but	it	is	also	one	of	the	worst
areas in	the	country

. After	9/11,	we	had	the	U

. S

. Attorney	General	visit , and he delivered	a	speech in	which he	stated	that	Houston	was	the	only	city	that	had every
area of	concern	regarding	terrorist	attack

. The	situation	has	not	changed ; the	Houston Ship	Channel	is	a	ticking	bomb,	and	we	need	to	address	the	issues.

• Ron	Sokol,	Ame rican	Society	of	Safety	Engineers (ASSE) , stated:

o ASSE	has 35,000	members	throughout	the United	States representing	environment, health , and	safety	professionals

. o We	need	to	utilize	prevention	strategies , such	as prevention

- through

- design and	other control	banding	strategies

.

 Some	models that	are	utilized in the	U nited K ingdom and	Australia	are	risk

based	rather	than	compliance

- based	and therefore drive	inherently	safer solutions.

o We	need	to	fix	our	standard	development	process ;	i t	is	brok en	today

. The	permissible exposure	limits	that	protect	the	workers	in	chemical	facilities	were developed	in	1970; 43	years have since passed , and	t hat	is	unacceptable

. I	encourage	the	group	to	utilizeEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 19 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 whatever	resources	they	can	to	incorporate	the National Institute	for	Occupational Safety	and	Health	( NIOSH ) rail	levels	into	chemical	exposures.

o I	would	suggest	that	we	e xpand the	voluntary	protection	process	or	even	codify Voluntary	Protection	Program	(VPP) because	it	is	the	effective	solution for bringing G overnment ,	labor,	and	management	together	to	resolve	safety	and	health	issues	in	the workplace

. The	fact	that V PP	is	considered	the	highest	level	of	compliance	means	that	it should	be	standard	operating	procedure	for	the	U

. S

. Chemical	Industry

. We	should	a ll operate	under V PP

- type	programs	with	systematic	programs	auditing	labor, management,	and Government ,	working	together	to	ensure	a	safe	and	healthy workplace.

o We	should	u tilize	the	existing	resources	available	to V PP	and V PP	partners ,	especially special Government employees who can	be	used	for	evaluating,	auditing , and assisting the Government to	ensure that	other	facilities	can	achieve	this	level	of	high

- safety

performance	in	the	workplace.

o I	would	e ncourage the passage	of	I2P2	(Injury	Illness Prevention	Programs) .	It	is	a tragedy	that	that	we	do	not	require	injury	and	illness	prevention	programs	in	our	places of	work.

o We	need	to	review	the	safety	is sues under PSM ,	specifically	as	they	relate to contractors

. 60% or	more of	work being	done in	che mical	plants	involve	contractor employees

. Many	may	not	have	the necessary skills	to	work	in the	process	industry	in which	they	are	asked	to	work.	Over	18%	of	contract	workers	coming	into	our standardized	chemical	safety	training	have	failed	our	program

. O SHA	needs	to	look	at section H ,	particularly as	it	relates	to	the	use	of	contract	employees.

o Panel question by Mr. Har b in to	Mr.	Sokol :	How	do	you	propose	to	utilize	Special Government	Employees (SGE s ) to	help	with	inspections	at	chemical	plans ?

 Mr.	Sokol ’s	response: First,	these	are	individuals	who	understand	the	working of	the	chemical	industry,	perhaps	more	so	than Government employees	who are	asked	to	lead	audit efforts

. SGEs	should	be	part	of	the	inspection	team	and should be	a	resource	to	ensure	tha t	lessons	learned	in	a	community	are	made available	to	each	facility

. o Panel question by Ms. Graydon to	Mr.	Sokol : You	have	s uggested the	use	of incentives to	employers	for	the	use	of	safer	technologies

. What	kind	of	incentives	would	you recommend?

 Mr.	Sok ol’s	response : Incentives	have	come	under	fire,	especially	when employees	are	being	paid	for	being	safe

. However,	the Government can incentivize	industry	through	recognition

. A	similar	example	would	be	the EPA Leadership	in	Energy	and	Environmental	Design ( LEED ) building certification

. Allow	those employers to	use safer	technologies by	recognizing	them in	a similar	manner.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 20 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 o Panel question by Ms. Conales to	Mr.	Sokol :	You	referred	to	the	use	of	contractors

. Can you be	more	specific about that?

 Mr.	Sokol’s response :	In	the	1990s,	there	was	a	significant	shift	from	proprietary forces	to	contract ors
. This	started	with areas like	labor	force	but	moved	over the	process to equipment	tasks	like	pipe

- fitting,	boiler

- making and	others

. They need	to	have	the	same	und erstanding	of	process	hazard	analysis and	the chemicals	in	use

. Contractors	need	to	be	able	to recognize hazards	as	related	to the	chemical	processes with	which they	deal

. My organization is	non

- profit , and we	offer skill	assessments	and	have	found	contrac t	staff	failing	at	a	rate	of about	50%.

o Panel question from Mr. Stanislaus to	Mr.	Sokol : You	mentioned	prevention	through design	and	other	safer	solutions

. How	would	you	propose to	use incentives to	move forward	with	these	concepts?

 Mr.	Sokol’s	response : T he	concepts	are	not	new	to	industry,	but	as	t he gentleman	from	Greenpeace	identified earlier , we	need	to	emphasize improvement	in	the	process to	ensure	that	they	are	inherently	safe

. We	need	to have	a	risk

- based	system	that	evaluates	the	risk	associate	wit h	an	activity

. o Panel question from Mr. Harbin to	Mr.	Sokol :	Could	you	talk	about	models	for	including the contractors	in	the	PSM	process ?

 Mr.	Sokol’s	response : I	was	going	to	address	that	in	the	best	practices	section, but	I	can	do	it	now

. Within	the	U

. S

. petrochemical	industry ,	our	organization participates as	part	of	a	consortium	of	23

- associations	called	the Association	of Reciprocal Safety	Council s
. This	consortium	touched	350,000	contractor employees	last	year	through	a	standardized	training	process

. Safety	is	good business , and	b y	having	a	reciprocal	model,	we were able	to	save training time by	recognizing	the	training	of	others

. This	saves	labor	hours for	companies	while also	freeing employees	to	participate	in	training	that	is	specific	to	the	haza rds	of the	facility	in	which	they	work.

 In	Texas	City,	we created	a solution	called	the Contract or	Assurance Process (CAP)

. In the process that	we	developed	for	the	BP	Texas	City	facility,	we	looked at	the entire safety	program	based	upon	the	tasks that ea ch	employee	was doing

. We	then	audited	each	contractor	to	ensure that each	was	following this policy and can	articulate	the program’s key	points

.

 We	also	created	a	registration	process	whereby employees need	to	be	drug

and	alcohol

- free	before	being	gradu ated	into	the	security	vetting	program

. Once they	passed	the	security	vetting,	they	would then enter	the	skills	development program
. With	the	graduated	approach,	we	were	able	to	minimize	costs	by ensuring	that	we	were	not	spending	money	on	a	background	che ck	for	someone who	was	not	eligible	to	work	due	to	drug	or	alcohol	dependence	and ,EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 21 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 further more ,	that	we	would	not	spend	money	to	train	someone	who	was	not eligible	to	work	due	to	issues	in	their	background.

• During	the	open	comment	period , the	following	attendees	spoke :
o Benjamin Craft

- Rendon, Environment	Texas , commented:

 It	is	necessary	for	EPA	to	do	what	is	under	its	authority to	enforce	better	safety under	the C lean A ir A ct.

 My	family	has	lived	in	Houston	for	generations

. There	are	healt h	problems	that have	affected	both	my	family	and	members	of	our	community.

 My	professional	background	is	pest	control.	The S tate	has specifically	tested	me and evaluated my	family	business on	how	we make	chemicals	(vs.	storing	them), and	we	are	evaluated	i n	how	we store	our	materials .	We	are	inspected randomly

. I	have	both	personal	and	property	liability	exposure	from	any accidents	we	may	cause. Why	should	my	small	business	face	more	difficult regulatory standards	than	these	larger multi

- national chemical	c ompanies	that can	harm	far	more	people? If	I	have	a	tank	of	a	chemical	and	am	driving	around and	create	a	spill,	I	could	be	liable	for	the	exposure	for	the	damage	associated with	that

. There	are	cases	where	such	business	owners	have	been	run	out	of busine ss
. However,	BP	has	a	benzene	leak	or	explosion	that	kills	firefighters, and they	are	able	to	move	or	declare	bankruptcy	to	dodge	the	enforcement

. There	is	inequity in who receives enforcement and	oversight and	in	what	form

.

• You	can	design	things	so	that when	they	fail,	you’ve	built in	the	limits	of the	damage

. Otherwise,	you	are	making	a	gamble	to	save	money	in	the short	term	against	the	long	term	cost	to	people’s	lives

. That’s	immoral

. o Raven Pena,	TEJAS , commented:

 EPA should	use	the	authority they	have under	the C lean A ir A ct	to require	high

risk	facilities	to	switch	to	safer	chemicals	and	processes	whenever	they	are available,	effective,	and	affordable

. Break

– 15	minutes.

Best	Practices

• Amy	Graydon,	DHS , provided	introductory	comments	regardi ng	the	status	of	Section	7	of	the Executive	Order:

o We’ve	been	thinking	about	a	definition	of “best	practices” to	provide	some	context	to the	discussion

. I’d	like	to	provide	what	we’ve	come	up	with	so	that	you	can	provide	us with	feedback.

o We’ve	also been working	on	how	to	collect	best	practices

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

. o Best practices include	methods,	techniques,	processes,	systems,	tactics,	or	approaches that	result	in	successful,	productive,	safer , and	more	secure	operations

. These	practices have	been	identified	through	means	that	include	stakeholder	experiences,	with	resultsEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 22 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 supported	by	data,	which	can	range	from	observations	to	scientific	studies

. Best practices	are	voluntary	and	if	instituted	c an	promote	effective	safety	and	security	at chemical	facilities.

• Ron ald Sokol

– Safety	Council,	Texas	City , commented:

o I	am	the	President	and	CEO	of	the	Safety	Council,	Texas	City.

o It	is	imperative	that	the	owner	of	a	facility	has	a	vetting	process	to	ensu re	that contractors	have	the	necessary	skills	to	do	the	required	work	effectively

. The Contractor Assurance	Process	(CAP)	model helps	to	ensure	that	contractors	have	the	necessary skills	to	do	the	required	work	effectively.

o My	organization	train s approximately	24 ,000 people	annually

. We	see varying	degrees of	safety	and	health	programs from	simple	programs	of	just	a	few	pages,	to	vastly	more complex	systems.

o There	needs	to	be	an	understanding	of	what “ is	real	in	the	field. ”

o The	process	we’ve	creat ed	is	reciprocal

. Anyone	who	touches	a	PSM	facility	or	process	is covered	for	up	to	a	3

- year	period

. o Drug	and alcohol use	continues	to	be	a	problem	in	the	U

. S

.

 We	have	migrated	to	hair	testing , as	it	is	more	effective.

o We	have	a	scoring	system	of	0

- 7,	wh ere	0	is	the	most	favorable	scoring

. Anyone	with	a felony	is	generally	not	permitted	to	work	in	the	facility.

o Transportation	Worker	Identification	Card	( TWIC ) is	not	an	adequate	security	vetting tool	and	therefore	is	not	being	used	for	vetting	by	a	facilit y.
o Panel question from Ms. Graydon to	Mr.	Sokol :	H ow	would you	replicate	this	system	on a	greater	scale?

 Mr.	Sokol’s	response :	We	have	partnered	with	some	technical	trade	schools.	We maintain	control	of	the	program,	but	utilize	partners	to	run	it

. We	requi re	our partners	to	be	501(c)3	non

- profit	organizations

. That	model	could	be	further replicated

. We	are	also	investigating	the	use	of	video	conferencing

. Integrity	of the	system	is	paramount

. o Panel question from Mr. Harbin to	Mr.	Sokol :	What	barriers	have you	encountered regarding	reciprocal	training?		Any	language	issues?

 Mr.	Sokol’s	response :	The	core	petro

- chemical	course	is	a	requirement	for	all

. It has	an	18%	failure	rate,	testing	on	a	4

– 6 th grade	level

. We determined that	75

- 80%	of	those	failures	were Spanish	speaking

. Therefore,	we	hired	bilingual instructors	and	translated	the	program	into	Spanish.

 Once	a	Spanish	speaking	student	has	passed	the	exam,	the	failure	rate	of	future recertifications drops	to	6%.

o Panel question from Capt.	Brian	Penoyer to	Mr.	Sokol :	You’ve	been	talking	about contractor	audits	and your	vetting	process

. In	other	reciprocal	models,	some	partners have	individual	needs	for	specialized	vetting

. In	those	cases,	you	end	up	with	a	need	forEO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 23 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 additi onal	vetting	and	that	in	itself	results	in	duplicative	efforts

. How	would	you	deal with	such	an	issue?

 Mr.	Sokol’s	response :	We	focus	on	the	9/10ths	of	the	solution

. If	individual
owners have additional vetting requirements,	that	is their issue	to	address

.

 We	created	a	credential	called	Protect

- Watch

. This	is	for	workers	with	safety watch	responsibilities

. That	worker	receives	training	in	fire	watch,	confined space,	fire	extinguisher	use,	atmospheric	meter	reading,	and	other	specific skills

. The	facility	m ay	add	any	additional	skills	that	may	be	specific	to	their facility

. o Panel question from Ms. Conales to	Mr.	Sokol : Are the	people	you ’re	vetting	and training already	been	hired?

 Mr.	Sokol’s	response : Most	of	the	time,	yes

. We	prefer	to	tie	the	credential to an	employer

. We	prefer	not	to	shift	the	burden	of	the	costs involved to	the employee

. It	does	not	preclude	an	individual	from	participating,	but	we	prefer that	an	employer	send	someone	who	has	already	been	approved	for	working	at a	particular	facility.

o Panel question from Ms. Conales to	Mr.	Sokol : The	employees	that	are	being	trained	to work	as	contractors	are	being	trained	for	their	own	safety	and	preparedness

. What about	changes	within	the	company?		How	do	we	manage	the	expectations	of	the employees	a nd	how	are	they	trained	accordingly?

 Mr.	Sokol’s	response : Training	is	just	one	component	of	a	comprehensive	safety program
. It	has	inherent	limitations

. It’s	very	important	to	require	written safety	and	health	programs	to	ensure	that	individuals	have	the	requisite knowledge

. If an	employee’s job	changes, s/ he	should	be	able	to	recognize	the need	for	additional	training

. An	integrated	solution	should	provi de	that.

o Panel question from Mr. Stanislaus to	Mr.	Sokol :	You	mentioned third

- party	audits

. What	are the	scope	of	these	audits ?

 Mr.	Sokol’s	response :	People who	are	identified	by	the	owner	and	individual s who are	involved	in the	industrial	process	will	be scrutinized	at	a	higher	level

. The	guy	who	mows	the	lawn	doesn’t	need	to	be scrutinized at	the	same	level	as the	person	who	touches	machinery.

• During	the	open	comment	period , the	following	attendees	spoke :
o Adrian	Shell e y,	Air Alliance Houston , commented:

 A ir	Alliance	Houston	is	an	environmental	air	quality	and	public	health organization	in	Houston.

 Thank	you	for	the	opportunity	to	visit	with	you	all	today

. The	short	notice	of	the listening	session	and	the	fact	that today is Election	Day makes	it	difficult	f or some	to	participate.

 We	appreciate	the	significance	of	having	the	first	session	here	in	Texas	City

. We’ve	seen	some	of	the	most	serious	disasters	in	our Nation’s history.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 24 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013  I	have	some	specific	r ecommendations	regarding	coordination	and communication

. It is	understandable	that	there	are	some	security	risks associated	with	sharing	information	with	the	public,	but	we	need	to	weigh	that against	the benefit	of	making	the	information	available	to	the	average	person

.

• There	are	many meaningful ways	to	share	info rmation	with	the	public

. The	Greenhouse	Gas	inventory	is	an	example	of	how	meaningful information	is	made	available	to	citizens.

 EPA	has	the statutory authority	to	do	what	is	needed	here

. The	general	duty clause is	from the	Clean	Air	Act

.

 Industry	best practices	need	to	be	identified	and	made	available

. We	need	a clearinghouse	that	is	accessible	for	industry	best	practices.

• There	are	a	lot	of	safer	chemicals	and	alternatives	that	are	available. There	are	hundreds	of	facilities	throughout	the	U

. S

. that	h ave	taken action	in	this	area on	a	voluntary	basis

. o John Deans ,	Greenpeace , commented:

• Regarding	the	use	of	safer	technologies,	it	is	understandable	that	there are	companies that can	and	cannot	comply	for	a	variety	of	reasons

. DHS has	some	information	available	concerning	companies that are	making people	safer	through	the	use	of	alternative	processes	and	chemicals

. I understand	that	there	is	a	sensitivity	concerning the	information ,	but there	should	be	a	way	for	companies	to	sha re	this	information	for	the benefit	of	all

. An	alternatives	assessment	has	proven	to	be	a	best practice	in	identifying	safer	methods	and	chemicals.

o Larry	Stanton stated : We	are	aware	of	two	cases in	which we	believe	that	a	government action	may	have	had	a very	substantial	motivating	effect	on	industry	to	pursue	options for	inherently	safer	technologies

.

• CFATS requires	a	great	deal	of	work	to	get	into	compliance,	and	so	it created	a n incentive for industry	to	move	to	safer	technology	to	get themselves	out	o f	CFATS

.

• New	Jersey passed	the T oxic S ubstance C ontrol A ct ,	which required companies	to	do	many	things	to	obtain	compliance.	This	too incentivized	companies	to	convert	to	other	alternatives. Closing	Remarks

• The	Executive	Order Working	Group is	continuing to	schedule	additional	listening	sessions

. Federal R egister N otices	will	be	forthcoming.

• If	you	would	like	to	submit	additional	written	comments,	you	may	do	so	at eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov

.

• Mathy	Stanislaus provided closing	remarks:

o Thank	you	all	for	attending	today.EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 25 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013 o Please	continue	to	think about	recommendations	and	suggestions	that	you	can	share with	us

. The	challenge	of	changing various regulations	is	considering	the	alternatives involved

. o If	there	are	ot her	methods	for	us	to	connect	with	stakeholders,	please	let	us	know.
Session	Attendance:

58

– In

- person
108

- Teleconference	lines



## Stakeholders	Represented	in	person

Congressional 0

State	and	local	Government 3 First	Responders	(LE,	Fire,	Hazmat, Emergency Mgmt) 4

Industry	Associations 3

Environmental	Groups 17

Labor	Groups 3
Owners/Operators 9

Consensus	Standards	Organizations 0

Other	Feds 6

Media 3

Other	(Citizens,	academia,	security	vendors) 10

TOTAL 58EO	13650	Listening	Session Notes Page 26 Texas	City,	Texas November	5,	2013

# Executive	Order	13650 Improving	Chemical	Facility	Safety	and	Security
November	5,	2013	Listening	Session
Hosted	by	the	Department	of	Homeland	Security	(DHS),	the Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA),	and	the Department	of	Labor	(DoL)
Location:	College	of	the	Mainland,	1200	Amburn	Road,	Texas	City,	TX 

## Agenda

8:00	a.m.

– 9:00	a.m. Registration
9:00	a.m.

– 9:25	a.m. Welcome,	Introductions,	and	Opening	Remarks Patrick	White,	Facilitator Dr.	Beth	Lewis,	President College	of	the	Mainland Eric	Harbin ,	DOL/OSHA Deputy	Regional	Administrator,	Region	6 Amy	Graydon ,	DHS Chief,	Policy	and	Rulemaking	Branch Michael	O’Lena, ATF Industry	Operations Investigator/Program	Manager,	Explosives	Industry	Programs Branch
9:25	a.m.

– 9:55	a.m.						Summary	and	Progress	to	Date Mathy	Stanislaus ,	EPA,	Executive	Order	13650	Working	Group	Co

- Chair Assistant	Administrator,	Office	of	Solid	Waste	and	Emergency Response
9:55	a.m.

– 10:05	a.m. Listening	Session	Format Patrick	White,	Facilitator
10:05	a.m.

– 4:20	p.m. Listening	Session Operational	Coordination	Between	Agencies Introduction/Approach:		Larry	Stanton,	EPA	and	Brian	Hoback,	ATF
Information Collection	and	Sharing Introduction/Approach:		Amy	Graydon,	DHS Policy,	Regulations	and	Standard	Modernization Introduction/Approach:		Lisa	Long,	OSHA
Best	Practices Introduction/Approach:		Amy	Graydon,	DHS 4:20	p.m.

– 4 :30	p.m.							Closing	Remarks Mathy	Stanislaus, EPA,	Executive	Order	13650	Working	Group	Co

- Chair Assistant	Administrator,	Office	of	Solid	Waste	and	Emergency	Response
Note:		Written	comments	may	be	submitted	to EO.Chemical@hq.dhs.gov