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 Reminded	individuals	on	the	phone	that	they	are	in	listen-only	and	that	Webinars	are	

scheduled.

o Eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov	is	the	email	for	submission	of	written	comments	to	the	

Executive	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	during	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	Executive	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)	

Chief,	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	regulatory	(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	that	responses	to	anything	specific	

related	to	the	rule	will	be	limited.

o Stated	that	DHS	is	responsible	for	leading	the	Best	Practices Working	Group	and	the	

Information	Collection	and	Sharing	Working	Group.

o Identify	commonalities	between	safety,	health,	emergency,	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’Lena,	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	

effective	way	to	enact	and	enforce	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,	Department	of	Agriculture	(USDA)	State	Executive	Directory	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	facilities	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.	Agriculture	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	Executive	order.

o Each	agency	has	an	important	role	under	the	Executive	order.

 OSHA:	Health	and	safety

 ATF:	Post-blast	investigation

 Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA):	Facility	safety	and	protection	of	human	

health	and	environment

 DHS:	Security	of	chemical	facilities
EO	13650	Listening	Session	Notes Page	3

Texas	City,	Texas

November	5,	2013

o Want	to	improve	how	information	is	shared	among	Federal	partners	and	also	with	the	

regulated	and	public	communities.

o First	of	at	least	five	listening	sessions	around	the	country.	This	includes	D.C.	sessions	and	

Webinars.

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	Executive order	sectioned	off	with	representatives	from	each	agency:

 Sections	3	and	4:	Improving	Coordination.	Focuses	on	improving	Federal	and	

public	coordination:

• Currently	developing	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	chemical	Tier	2	

followings.

 Section	5:	Information	Collection	and	Sharing

• Improve	way	that	we	collect	and	disseminate	information	among	

Federal,	State,	and	local	entities.

• Create	flexible	data-sharing	process.

 Section	6:	Policy	and	Standards	Modernization

• Developing	a	proposal	for	handling	and	storing	Ammonium	Nitrate.

• Review	chemicals	covered	by	CFATS,	EPA’s	Risk	Management	Program

(RMP),	and	OSHA’s	Process	Safety	Management	standards	(PSM).

• Improving	existing	risk	management	practices

 Section	7:	Stakeholder	Outreach	and	Improving	Collection	Practices

• Collecting	best	practices	that	can	be	implemented	in	the	final	stages	of	

the	Executive	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:	Chemical	Advisory	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

 Draft	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	Executive	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	Executive	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	row.

 As	you	speak	into	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	Federal	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	

Federal	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	Region	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	Emergency	

Response	Commissions	(SERCs) are	a	great	source	of	coordinating	

information	through	the	multiple	levels	and	groups	responsible	for	

chemical	safety	and	security.

 The	structure	created	under	national	response	framework,	specifically	the	

National	Response	Teams	(NRT)	and	the	Regional	Response	Teams	(RRT), is	a

potential	structure	that	the	working	group	can	use	to	assist	with	response	to	

State	and	local	communities.
EO	13650	Listening	Session	Notes Page	5

Texas	City,	Texas

November	5,	2013

• Marcos	Velez,	United	Steel	Workers	(USW),	stated:

o He	works	on	the	Houston	ship	channel.

o Believes	this	Executive	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-fits-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	Government	is	more	reactive	rather	than	proactive.	

o Multiple	disasters	show	this,	including	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,	General	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	workers	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	worked	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	surety	with	Federal	

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	blasting	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 Supports	sharing	information	about	operations	directly	with	emergency	responders	that	

serve	the	local	community.

o Supports	vetting	of	personnel	in	security	backgrounds,	but	many	Federal	programs	need	

to	be	coordinated	better.	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.	Urges	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	Freeport,	TX.

o Dow	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	largest	strategic	petroleum	reserve	is	located	at Brian	Mound.

 Dow	encompasses	11	square	miles,	62	production	plants,	and	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	committee.	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	Response	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	Freeport,	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	permit	was	received	on	September	5,	2013	without	scrutiny	

because	proper	channels	were	not	notified.

 Not	reporting	Benzene	streams.

o Dow	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	does	not	have	

knowledge	of	the	chemicals	that	will	be	used	in	production.	

o Need	better	processes	to	improve	chemical	safety.

o Requesting	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	open	comment	period,	the	following	attendees	spoke:

o David	Popov,	Emergency	Management	Coordinator	for	Galveston	County,	commented:

 Section	3	of	the	EO	is	important;	how	do	we	get	information	to	responders?

 Appreciates	the	effort	of	the	EPA	and	the	government	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	common	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

 Works	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	community.

 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:	Which	statute	was	the	presenter	referencing	when	

talking	about	the	General	Duty	Clause?

 The	presenter	did	not	know	the	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	

comments	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	ground	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	LEPCs	in	Galveston	County,	TX.	The	

county	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	Administration Code	states	that	these	

donations	have	to	go	through	county	commissioner	court.	

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

included.

• Mentioned	the	National	Response	Framework	as	a	model	and	stated	

that emergencies	are	local.	LEPCs	should	be	able	to	handle	the

emergencies	and	data	because	the	data	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 Council	of	Governments	has	a	permanent	LEPC	support	

committee	on	top	of	LEPCs
EO	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	Collection	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	noncompliant	facility	data	sharing

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	been	collected	

multiple	times.

o There	is	confusion	regarding	facility	information	from	one	collection	point	to	another	

(address,	facility	name,	etc).	This	causes	difficulties	when	trying	to	match	data.

o Group	is	looking	at	ways	to	better	link	databases,	potentially	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	better	understand	requirements	of	State	and	local	stakeholders,	and	how	

they	want/need	to	receive	this	information.

• Bob	Johnson,	Environmental	Affairs	Manager,	Lennox	International,	Inc.,	remarked:

o Provided	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	Webbased	tool	for	submitting	Tier	II	reports.	It	also	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	with	facilities	in	several	States,	it	is	challenging	to	use	different	systems	to	

submit	these	reports	(Tier	II).	They	preferred	to	have	a	“national	standard”	type	of	
EO	13650	Listening	Session	Notes Page	10

Texas	City,	Texas

November	5,	2013

reporting.	Even	in	States	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 There	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	situations.	Defunding	is	causing	a	

fracturing	of	efforts.

• Katherine	Rodriguez,	United	Support	and	Memorial	for	Workplace	Fatalities,	commented

o Her	organization	is	comprised	of a	group	of	family	members	who	lost	someone	in	a	

workplace	incident.

o Father	was	killed	at	a	BP	refinery	when	a	line	burst	and	scalded	him.	He	was	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	responding	to	these	incidents.

o Applauds	the	efforts	to	build	upon	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	Environmental	Justice	Advocacy	Service	(TEJAS),	remarked:

o Ms.	Rodriguez’s	comments	were	very	good.

o Registered	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	from	North	Texas.

o Upon	moving	here,	she	was	surprised	by	the	quantities	of	chemicals	stored	in	locations	

near	community	places.	These	types	of	storage	and	quantities	would	not	occur	in	her	

labs.

o Showed	a	map	displaying	high-risk	communities:	it	tends	to	be	focused	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)	challenged	
EO	13650	Listening	Session	Notes Page	11

Texas	City,	Texas

November	5,	2013

Federal	agencies	to	look	at	the	risk	put	on	low-income	communities.	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	are	exposed	to	these	chemicals	on	

a	daily	basis.

o We	are	lucky	that	most	of	us	are	not as	affected	by	these	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	

these	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.

 Has	spent	4–5	years	trying	to	convince the	Government	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	

refining	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	participation	in	these	standards	going	forward,	establishing

more	effective	process	standards	using	scientists	not	connected	to	the	oil	

industry.

• In	2013,	there	are	still	companies	that	do	not	allow	workers	to	

participate	in	an	accident	investigation.

 Would	also	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, Public	Citizen,	Texas	City,	TX,	remarked:

 He	has	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	class-action	lawsuit	has	been	filed	to	make	sure	

monitoring	occurs.

 He	supports	this	industry	but	wants	better	monitoring.

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

public.

o John	Deans,	Greenpeace	USA,	commented:

 On	information	sharing:	The	CFATS	program	has	an	incredibly	rich	of	data	that	is	

not	available	to	the	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	information	should	be	made	available	to	the	public.

 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	October	23,	2013	early	in	the	morning.	There	

were	three	explosions	in	the	community	that	shook	the	house.	Residents	deal	
EO	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	of	

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	first	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: Is	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	Tier2Submit.	This	year’s	

budget	is	$900,000,	and	is	probably	not	enough	money	to	maintain	the	

program.

o Many	first	responders	use	the	EPLAN	web	portal	to	understand	

risks	at	the	location	when	responding.	However,	he’s	not	an	

expert	on	the	responder	side.

o University	of	Texas	–	Dallas	has	worked	out	a	user	pay	scheme,	

but	other	States	are	not	interested	in	others	to	pay	more.

o A	permanent	home	with	Federal	funding	would	be	best.

o They	are	currently	enhancing	the	functionality	of	the	system	

through	private	funding,	but	Federal	funding	will	establish	a	

common	approach.

 Mr.	Stanislaus	to	Mr.	Lefton:	As	part	of	the	EO,	we	are	looking	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	companies.

 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	time	once	a	month.	It	is	

difficult	to	view	this	data	using	this	method.	He	would	like	to	see	this	

data	accessible	through	Web	access	as	needed.	This	would	make	it	

much	more	available	to	communities	living	with	these	risks.

• Mr.	Stanislaus	asked	a	follow-up	question.	Mr.	Deans	used	the	following	

as	an	example.	If	a	person	lives	15	miles	from	a	chlorine	facility,	he	or	
EO	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	White	wrapped	up	the	morning	session	by	dismissing	everyone	for	lunch.

The	group	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.	Ideas	have	been	exchanged	to	develop	a	proposal.	The	EO	requires	

that	during	the	second	90	days, the Working	Group	is	engaging	stakeholders	

and	discussing	the	ideas	developed.	Still	want	to	take	stakeholders’	input	for	the	

initial	work.

 6.a.ii	– Requires	that	in	the	second	90-day	period,	stakeholders 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	

jurisdictions	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	hazards.	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 – Requires	OSHA	to	issue	a	Request	for	Information	(RFI) for	the	PSM	

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

the	RFI	is	issued,	it	will	include	a	set	of	specific	questions.	We	ask	that	

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

the	docket.

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,	commented:

o Association	is	located	in	Port	Arthur,	Texas.	

o Served	on	the	Environmental	Justice	Advisory	Council	to	the	EPA.

o Currently	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	Federal	and	State	governments	to	enforce	the	policies	of	

the	present	regulations	and	policies	within	the	Clean	Air	Act,	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	State	and	Federal	governments	to	work	together	to	agree	that	something	needs	to	

be	done,		we	can	improve air	quality	and	can	save	the	lives	of	thousands	of	people	

throughout	the	county.	There	is	a	lack	cohesiveness,	especially	as	it	relates	to	Federal	

and	State	agencies	working	together.

o Here	in	Texas,	the	Texas	Commission	of	Environmental	Quality	is	constantly	fighting	the	

Federal	Government	when	it	comes	to	enforcing	laws	that	are	on	the	books.	I	would	like	

to	urge	the	Federal	Government	to	step	up,	protecting	those	living	in	States	that	refuse	

to	work	with	the	Federal	Government	and	enforcing the	law.

o Every	year	we	lose	thousands	of	individuals	to	toxic	chemical	exposure.	Dr.	Marvin	

Gator	did	a	symptom	survey	in	2002	regarding	exposures	in	various	parts	of	Texas.	They	

determined	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	standards	should	include	requirements	for	annual	or	semi-annual	

inspections	and	require	facilities	to	perform	equipment	upgrades.

• John	Deans,	Greenpeace	USA,	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 Represent	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,	environmental	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	our	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	International,	a	chlorine	manufacturer,	is	now	

using	a	formula	from	a	Texas-based	company	to	do	their	bleach	process	instead	of	using	

chlorine	gas. They	are	using	a	brine	to	bleach	process;	it’s	a	safer	technology.		They	have	

removed	rail	cars	of	chlorine	gas	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	petitioned	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	endorsed	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	not	prescriptive,	but	it	is	a	way	to	evaluate	

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	have	
EO	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	

another	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	accept	written	comments.	Please	send	any	

comments	to	eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov.	

• A	question	from	the	audience	concerning	how	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 Resident	of	Houston,	in	the	greater	second	ward,	just	a	few	miles	from	several	chemical	

facilities.

o In	Texas,	we	have	more	than	100	facilities	that	endanger	more	than	100,000	people.	

Research	indicates	that	these	appear	to	be	located	in	lower	income	communities	and	

communities	of	color.

o To	deal	with	the	threats,	we	need	requirements	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	requirements	need	to	be	enforceable.	There	need	to	be	sufficient	resources	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	regulations which	have	already	been	

elaborated	by	others	better	than	I	could	do	here.	This	underscores	the	need	for	you	to	

seriously	consider	buffer	zone	requirements	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	are	
EO	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	throughout	the	Nation.	With	the	short	notice	

given	regarding	the	date	of	this	meeting,	we	sent	out	a	letter	to	our	members	and	asked	

for	their	support.	We	have	35	groups	that	have	signed	onto	our	letter.	I	have	copies	for	

the	group.	(Mr.	Parras	distributed	a	hard-copy	to	panel.)

o An	Executive	order	that	someone	mentioned	earlier	was	passed	in	1994.	Since	then,	

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	Executive	order	

of	1994.	In	2011,	the	Executive	order	also	created	the	National	Environmental	Justice	

Advisory	Committee	(NEJAC).	That	Committee	used	to	meet	every	3 months.	I	believe	it	

may	now	only	meet	once	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	meetings	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	Lisa	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,	American	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	United	Kingdom	and	Australia	are	riskbased	rather	than	compliance-based	and	therefore	drive	inherently	safer	

solutions.

o We	need	to	fix	our	standard	development	process;	it	is	broken	today.	The	permissible	

exposure	limits	that	protect	the	workers	in	chemical	facilities	were	developed	in	1970;	

43	years	have	since	passed,	and	that	is	unacceptable.	I	encourage	the	group	to	utilize	
EO	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	expand	the	voluntary	protection	process	or	even	codify	

Voluntary	Protection	Program	(VPP)	because	it	is	the	effective	solution	for	bringing	

Government,	labor,	and	management	together	to	resolve	safety	and	health	issues	in	the	

workplace.	The	fact	that	VPP	is	considered	the	highest	level	of	compliance	means	that	it	

should	be	standard	operating	procedure	for	the	U.S.	Chemical	Industry.	We	should	all	

operate	under	VPP-type	programs	with	systematic	programs	auditing	labor,	

management,	and	Government,	working	together	to	ensure	a	safe	and	healthy	

workplace.

o We	should	utilize	the	existing	resources	available	to	VPP	and	VPP	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-safetyperformance	in	the	workplace.

o I	would	encourage	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	issues	under	PSM,	specifically	as	they	relate	to	

contractors.	60%	or	more	of	work	being	done	in	chemical	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.	OSHA	needs	to	look	at	

section	H,	particularly	as	it	relates	to	the	use	of	contract	employees.	

o Panel	question	by	Mr.	Harbin	to	Mr.	Sokol:	How	do	you	propose	to	utilize	Special	

Government	Employees (SGEs) 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	that	lessons	learned	in	a	community	are	made	

available	to	each	facility.	

o Panel	question	by	Ms.	Graydon	to	Mr.	Sokol:	You	have	suggested	the	use	of	incentives	

to	employers	for	the	use	of	safer	technologies.	What	kind	of	incentives	would	you	

recommend?

 Mr.	Sokol’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	contractors.	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	understanding	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	contract	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:	The	concepts	are	not	new	to	industry,	but	as	the	

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	with	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	Councils.	This	consortium	touched	350,000	contractor	

employees	last	year	through	a	standardized	training	process.	Safety	is	good	

business,	and	by	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	hazards	of	

the	facility	in	which	they	work.

 In	Texas	City,	we	created	a	solution	called	the	Contractor	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	each	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	drugand	alcohol-free	before	being	graduated	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	check	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

furthermore,	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	Clean	Air	Act.

 My	family	has	lived	in	Houston	for	generations.	There	are	health	problems	that	

have	affected	both	my	family	and	members	of	our	community.

 My	professional	background	is	pest	control.	The	State	has	specifically	tested	me	

and	evaluated	my	family	business	on	how	we	make	chemicals	(vs.	storing	them),	

and	we	are	evaluated	in	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	companies	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	

business.		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	Clean	Air	Act	to	require	highrisk	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	regarding	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	results	
EO	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	can	promote	effective	safety	and	security	at	

chemical	facilities.

• Ronald 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	ensure	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	trains	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	created	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,	where	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	facility.

o Panel	question	from	Ms.	Graydon	to	Mr.	Sokol:	How	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	require	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	4–6th	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	for	
EO	13650	Listening	Session	Notes Page	23

Texas	City,	Texas

November	5,	2013

additional	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	may	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	and	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	provide	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	individuals

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	Shelley,	Air	Alliance	Houston,	commented:

 Air	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	for	

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	recommendations	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	information	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	have	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	share	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	an	incentive	for	industry	to	move	to	safer	technology	to	get	

themselves	out	of	CFATS.

• New	Jersey	passed	the Toxic	Substance	Control	Act,	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	Register	Notices	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	other	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 58
EO	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