    [Senate Hearing 116-384]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-384

    STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY
                         AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 29, 2020

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     42-637PDF           WASHINGTON : 2021

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE BRAUN, Indiana                  BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                  Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                JANUARY 29, 2020
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Jahn, Chris, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
      Chemistry Council..............................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Barrasso.........................................    12
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    13
            Senator Markey...........................................    13
    Kadri, Shakeel, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer,
      Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of
      Chemical Engineers.............................................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    17
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso......    21
    Sallman, Steve, Assistant Director, Health, Safety, and
      Environment, United Steelworkers...............................    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
        Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso.....    38
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Markey........    38

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter to President Trump from the American Chemistry Council et
      al., January 29, 2020..........................................    55
    ``Industrial Blast in Houston Kills at Least Two,'' by Elizabeth
      Findell, the Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2020.............    56

    STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY
                         AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2020

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Braun,
    Sullivan, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, and Gillibrand.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order.
        Today, we are going to consider Stakeholder Perspectives on
    the Importance of the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard
    Investigation Board, more commonly known as the Chemical Safety
    Board. Congress established the Chemical Safety Board in the
    Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and began funding the agency
    in 1998.
        Its mission is to investigate the facts, conditions,
    circumstances, and cause or probable cause of accidental
    chemical releases that result in a loss of life and serious
    injury or serious property damage. The board also issues
    corrective actions and recommendations for the purpose of
    improving chemical production, processing, handling, and
    storage.
        The board's main role is fact finding and analysis. For
    this reason, Congress excluded the board's findings,
    conclusions, and recommendations from use in litigation arising
    from accidents.
        The board serves a critical role in helping us understand
    why chemical accidents take place and the steps needed to
    ensure these accidents do not happen again. The board also
    plays an important role in helping the Environmental Protection
    Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
    help them better protect the general public and workers. It is
    in everyone's interest to keep the board functioning.
        We should have a five member board, but currently, it is
    without a chairperson and has been reduced to two members. The
    term of one of those board members expires next Thursday,
    February 6th. By the end of the week, the Chemical Safety Board
    will have just one member. This is completely unacceptable.
        Last summer, President Trump nominated Dr. Katherine Lemos,
    a former official of the Federal Aviation Administration and
    the National Transportation Safety Board, to serve as
    chairperson of the board. In September, this Committee approved
    her nomination unanimously. The Democrat hold has prevented her
    nomination from clearing the Senate. If this continues for
    another week, it will deeply impair the ability of the board to
    conduct such critical business as deciding which investigations
    to open and the finalization of reports.
        These aren't my words; these words come from the EPA's
    Inspector General. We collectively cannot let that happen. We
    must get Dr. Lemos confirmed.
        I would note that over the weekend, a chemical explosion
    killed two workers at a manufacturing plant in Houston. It made
    the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Here it is: ``Blast
    at Houston manufacturing plant kills at least two.''
        We also need to fill the remaining vacancies on the
    Chemical Safety Board, because as I say, it is a five member
    board. This is an agency that needs strong, qualified, and
    impartial leadership.
        EPA's Inspector General has stated that historically, the
    Chemical Safety Board has been plagued with leadership issues,
    such as tension among board members, disputes over the
    chairperson's authorities, and complaints of alleged abuses by
    board members or the chairperson. In the middle of the Obama
    administration, the board's former chairperson resigned, and
    its General Counsel and Managing Director were later forced
    out.
        According to the EPA's Inspector General, management
    challenges continue to exist. More recent examples have
    included a board member filing public comments on an EPA
    proposed rule prior to the board adopting an official position
    on the rule. Also, a board member engaging in inappropriate
    communications with stakeholders. This behavior severely
    undermined morale among the board's personnel.
        In response to these incidents, the Inspector General has
    recommended that the board develop guidance on board member
    responsibilities. It has also recommended that the board
    request that Congress amend the Clean Air Act to strengthen the
    role and authority of the chairperson.
        For these reasons, I am glad that we have a panel of
    distinguished witnesses who represent the key stakeholders who
    are here with us today. They will help us better understand the
    board's role, mission, and performance, opportunities for
    improvement and reform, and how the work of the board is
    critical to their own safety initiatives.
        I want to thank you all for joining us today.
        I would like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
    opening comments.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank for bringing us
    together.
        I was talking with our witnesses beforehand and said that
    this is a board that is small, not well known, but it is a
    little bit like my State, which punches above its weight. I am
    delighted that we are having a hearing and pleased to welcome
    each of you today.
        We are here today to discuss the importance of the Chemical
    Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, an important Federal
    agency charged with investigating industrial chemical
    accidents. Coming from a State that is synonymous with the name
    DuPont and chemistry, this is something that is worth a little
    bit of interest to us and to me.
        This board has investigated everything from BP oil spills
    to fatal refinery accidents to the chemical explosions caused
    by flooding during Hurricane Harvey in 2013.
        Regrettably, the current Administration has failed to
    support the agency financially. In fact, each and every one of
    the President's last three budget proposals have called for the
    board's elimination.
        Fortunately though, the Congress has rightfully rejected
    President Trump's repeated efforts to dismantle the Chemical
    Safety Board. After chemicals at the Arkema Facility in Texas
    exploded during Hurricane Harvey because there was no
    electricity to keep those chemicals cold, I asked the Chemical
    Safety Board to investigate. The board subsequently recommended
    that chemical facilities need to do more to plan for extreme
    weather events like hurricanes, like flooding, wildfires, that
    climate change is causing and will continue to cause.
        The Trump administration is not requiring anyone to plan
    for or mitigate against the effects of climate change. As we
    all know, this Administration is doing just the opposite.
    President Trump even rescinded the Obama administration's
    executive orders that required federally funded projects to be
    built to better withstand flood risks and help communities
    rebuild stronger and smarter following extreme weather damage.
        That leaves the Chemical Safety Board as the only Federal
    entity that is providing guidance to mitigate the costly and
    often dangerous impacts of climate change under this
    Administration. Similarly, the Chemical Safety Board is set to
    soon finalize the rule that will require immediate public
    reporting of chemical releases.
        By contrast, the Trump administration recently weakened an
    EPA rule that would better inform communities about the
    potential dangers of chemicals stored nearby. The current
    Administration also weakened a portion of the EPA rule that
    would have required the chemical industry to consider whether
    alternative chemicals or processes could reduce the
    consequences of a chemical safety accident.
        This EPA rule was developed after an explosion literally
    leveled the town of West, Texas. Not the western part of Texas;
    that is a town called West, Texas. It killed some 15 people in
    2013. Many of us remember that. The Chemical Safety Board
    investigated the incident and determined that different ways of
    handling the chemicals could have prevented the accident from
    happening in the first place.
        In addition to protecting communities, the Chemical Safety
    Board also plays a vital role in protecting workers. Right now,
    the board is reviewing seven serious chemical safety incidents
    that occurred in Texas, some of which resulted in worker
    fatalities. One of those incidents occurred just last week,
    when a chemical exploded at the Watson Chemical Facility in
    Houston, unfortunately claiming the life of one worker.
        Other recent incidents took place at refineries, some of
    which store hydrofluoric acid onsite. Hydrofluoric acid is so
    dangerous that it can quickly kill or hurt literally tens of
    thousands of people or more if a release occurred in a densely
    populated area.
        In fact, today the board is still investigating the massive
    explosion that occurred just north of where I live at the
    Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery in South Philadelphia,
    some 7 months ago. Thankfully, the explosion did not result in
    a large scale release of hydrofluoric acid, which could have
    caused mass casualties. I think the workers get great credit
    for actually stemming and preventing what could have been just
    a terrible disaster.
        The Trump administration has weakened several environmental
    and safety rules that protect workers, again, leaving the
    Chemical Safety Board as the sole voice protecting
    recommendations to industry that could help protect workers and
    communities.
        I believe that everyone here today agrees that the Chemical
    Safety Board must continue to be provided with the resources it
    needs to do its job. About that, there is little disagreement.
    High among the resources needed are five qualified, nominated,
    and confirmed board members, as the Chairman has mentioned.
        Next week, when Rick Engler's term expires, there will be
    only one board member left. Even if the only nominee this
    President has nominated to the board, Katherine Lemos, is
    confirmed before then, the board will again be left with only
    one member in August when Kristen Kulinowski's term expires.
        There are currently, as we know, 53 Republican Senators and
    only 47 Democrats. Our majority leader is free to schedule a
    vote to confirm Dr. Lemos anytime he wants, and frankly, I
    suspect he would have even more than 53 votes to do that.
        The majority leader has found time in his schedule, in our
    schedules, to confirm a whole lot of nominees. For example, he
    scheduled a vote to confirm Aurelia Skipwith, whose
    confirmation hearing in front of this Committee was on the
    exact same date as Katherine Lemos's.
        Let's set the record straight. The potential absence of a
    quorum at the Chemical Safety Board is, frankly, no one's fault
    except our President's, who has tried again and again to
    eliminate the agency entirely and failed for 3 years to
    nominate more than a single board member to serve.
        I still find galling the confirmation of Aurelia Skipwith,
    and it is hard to get it out of my system. I will just lay it
    out here again. Here was a nominee who refused to respond to
    appropriate questions that were asked of her in person,
    questions for the record, and never did. We still let that
    nomination go forward.
        I think that is a shame. That is a shame. If I were ever to
    have an opportunity to lead this Committee, I might not. We
    will try not to do that in the future.
        Thanks very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe, I know you have a
    conflicting action as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
        Senator Inhofe. I appreciate it very much.
        Just a brief comment.
        I say to both my colleagues up here, I had a chance to come
    early and visit with all three of the witnesses today. The only
    question I would have is a question that I am sure will be
    answered in the opening statement of Mr. Jahn.
        I think I have the distinction of being the only person up
    here that is a member of this Committee who was actually an
    original cosponsor of the Amendment to the Clean Air Act back
    in 1990, and we were very supportive at that time. We are going
    to make sure that we do everything we can to correct the
    problem and to get a workable committee that we can get things
    done, so that will be our effort, I think, of all of us up
    here.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to get on the
    record.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Carper. May I just say one more thing, Mr.
    Chairman?
        Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to schedule a meeting to
    meet for a couple of weeks now. There has been something
    getting in the way, so I am having a tough time clearing our
    schedule.
        My hope is one of the things that we will have a chance to
    talk about face to face is this issue, this board, and how we
    can resolve the nominating process and get the job done. He
    wants to, and I want to, as well.
        Senator Barrasso. I would point out, in terms of things
    that are getting in the way right now, it is also getting in
    the way of spending time on the Senate floor getting anyone
    confirmed to any position. So the idea that our nominee Lemos,
    who has gotten through this Committee unanimously, has now been
    blocked on the Senate, or as someone had mentioned, should not
    go by unanimous consent, and should be called up and go through
    a whole process because of a previous nominee, Ms. Skipwith,
    seems to not be the appropriate issue to what we should be
    fighting that old battle on.
        When we have somebody who by history, somebody that goes
    through the Committee unanimously, usually goes by unanimous
    consent to the floor, not file cloture and go through multiple
    series of votes. But if we really want to move forward with
    getting this nominee in place by the time that we are down to
    one member of the board, then any extension of the activity on
    the floor right now and the delays that it will cause will
    prevent either way getting that nomination filled.
        So with that, I would like to turn to our witnesses.
        Today, we are joined by Mr. Chris Jahn, who is President
    and Chief Executive Officer of the American Chemistry Council.
    He is very knowledgeable about these issues.
        Nearly two decades ago, Chris sat on these benches behind
    us as a legislative assistant. He was responsible for
    environmental policy at that time. He continues to work along
    that line. It is always good to see staff doing well.
        Also joining us is Mr. Shakeel Kadri, who is the Executive
    Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Chemical
    Process Safety at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
    and Mr. Steve Sallman, who is the Assistant Director of the
    Health, Safety, and Environment Department at the United
    Steelworkers.
        I want to welcome all of you. I want to remind you that
    your full, written testimony will be made part of our official
    hearing record today, so we please ask that you keep your
    statements to 5 minutes so that we may have time for questions.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony, and with that, we
    will start with Mr. Jahn.

    STATEMENT OF CHRIS JAHN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                       AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL

        Mr. Jahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and
    Ranking Member Carper for holding today's hearing on the
    Chemical Safety Board.
        The CSB has the important job of independently
    investigating major accidents and making recommendations. The
    CSB's findings are very influential and a catalyst for safety
    improvements and ensure that the American Chemistry Council
    strongly supports the work of the CSB.
        ACC believes the board plays a much needed role for
    safeguarding the public, the environment, and chemical
    facilities. In order to be effective in that role, the CSB
    needs the full five board members that Congress envisioned when
    it created the CSB. Furthermore, those board members should
    have a broad range of experience, particularly expertise in
    manufacturing operations, processes, and procedures that are
    essential to the safe operation of chemical facilities.
        As you know, our industry is undergoing a major
    transformation to a new era of unprecedented growth and
    investment that is driven by new domestic sources of safe,
    affordable, and abundant natural gas. More than 340 new
    chemical industry projects valued at over $200 billion worth of
    investment have been announced for construction in the past
    decade, just here in the United States.
        So as we continue to build on this new investment, we must
    make sure that growth does not come at the expense of safety,
    either of our workers, our communities, or our customers.
    Safety must remain at the forefront of everything that we do.
        Our commitment to safety as an industry is embodied in
    ACC's Responsible Care Program, the chemical industry's leading
    environmental, health, safety, and security performance
    initiative. Our program reflects a commitment by our member and
    our partner companies to prevent and mitigate the impact of
    chemical incidents.
        One important component of responsible care calls on ACC
    members to evaluate the circumstances of each incident and
    learn from their own experiences as well as the experiences of
    other companies. To help collect and apply these learnings, ACC
    created regional networks all across the country that bring
    site safety personnel together on a regular basis to share
    process safety knowledge, effective practices and solutions,
    and encourage peer to peer networking.
        More recently, we brought together a special group to
    examine the recent incidents that occurred in the Houston,
    Texas, area. The group made several recommendations, including
    ways to enhance air quality monitoring capabilities, emergency
    response, and the design and performance of above ground
    storage tanks. We take every incident seriously, and we seek to
    learn from each one by sharing information on the factors that
    led to the incident and identifying excellent practices to
    prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.
        To that end, we work with the CSB to ensure that there is
    broad awareness of the board's recommendations within our
    industry, and it is why we have undertaken safety initiatives
    that complement but do not replace the board's work.
        ACC is committed to working with the Administration and
    Congress to ensure that we have a fully functioning and fully
    staffed CSB. Unfortunately, there is a very real prospect that
    has been pointed out this morning, that we very soon could have
    only one member of the board, a scenario which ACC and our
    members would like to avoid.
        That is why we urge the Administration to nominate
    additional, well qualified industry and process safety experts
    to serve on the board, and we ask the Senate to confirm these
    nominees as soon as possible.
        I close my remarks by thanking the current and past board
    members for their work to promote sound chemical safety
    practices. We look forward to working with you and with the
    Administration to fill the open positions at the CSB with
    capable and committed candidates and ensure the board has the
    resources it needs to fulfill its mission.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jahn follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Jahn.
        Mr. Kadri.

       STATEMENT OF SHAKEEL KADRI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF
    EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTER FOR CHEMICAL PROCESS SAFETY, AMERICAN
                    INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS

        Mr. Kadri. Good morning Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
    Carper. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about
    the mission and the role of CSB.
        First, a little bit about my background. I am a chemical
    engineer. I have been working nearly 40 years in the industry
    in implementing a variety of engineering operation,
    environmental health, and process safety projects with the aim
    to reduce or eliminate process safety incidents, as well as
    environmental impacts.
        I personally feel very strongly about this issue. In my 40
    year journey, I have closely seen benefits be achieved from
    sound process safety implementation and severe impact from
    incidents where process safety failed. My current organization,
    the Center for Chemical Process Safety, or CCPS, is a
    technology alliance of the American Institute of Chemical
    Engineers.
        AIChE is a 110 year old non-profit technical organization
    which is working for a safe, connected, inclusive community.
    CCPS is funded by corporate members, as well as self-funded
    through conferences, education, et cetera, as well as through
    the AIChE Foundation. Established in 1985 in response to the
    Bhopal gas tragedy in India, CCPS has about 225 corporate
    members around the world who are dedicated to preventing
    process safety incidents and improve process safety performance
    across the industry.
        Over the past 35 years, CCPS has published more than a
    hundred books on the subject of process safety that are used as
    good practice guidance reference material. Our chemical and
    chemical processing industries stimulates the economy with high
    paying jobs and development of new and innovative materials
    that enables other U.S. companies and sectors to lead the world
    in scientific and technological advancement. We are a net
    exporter of U.S. products.
        Many of these businesses, however, are dependent on the use
    of hazardous material and operate with the daunting challenges
    of preventing catastrophic accidents. Such accidents, though
    rare, have severe and far reaching consequences. Given this
    rarity, many companies often lack in house expertise of self-
    investigation, and concerns about potential liability inhibit
    willingness to share lessons learned.
        Recognizing these issues, Congress created the Chemical
    Safety Board to provide all chemical users and producers the
    expertise needed to investigate major incidents and disseminate
    lessons learned, best practices, and technologies, with the
    common goal of minimizing and eliminating catastrophic
    incidents.
        AIChE believes that this is a competence that must be
    maintained and a need that we collectively must continue to
    address. We urge you to provide and continue funding for the
    Chemical Safety Board so that they may continue to provide this
    vital service.
        CSB has become an effective and important partner to our
    country's process industry, and it is this chemical energy and
    related companies that are so essential to our Nation's
    continued economic development and competitiveness. CSB has
    investigated more than 130 major chemical incidents across the
    country, has issued 841 safety recommendations, of which 83
    percent of them are already closed.
        The CSB safety reports, bulletins, and videos are widely
    used and cited by the industry community, academia,
    professional associations, first responders, labor, and
    community leaders. In fact, CSB's 68 videos have received 6.4
    million views, and its YouTube channel has nearly 20,000
    followers.
        We believe that the CSB plays a critical role in keeping
    Americans safe and strengthening the performance of our
    industry.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kadri follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for your
    thoughtful testimony. We appreciate your being here today, and
    we will be back with questions in a few moments.
        Mr. Sallman, could I call on you, please?

    STATEMENT OF STEVE SALLMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HEALTH, SAFETY,
                  AND ENVIRONMENT, UNITED STEELWORKERS

        Mr. Sallman. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
    Member Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        Our union is the largest industrial union in North America,
    representing 850,000 members across a wide variety of
    manufacturing and service sectors. Most relevant for this
    hearing, we are the predominant union in oil refining,
    chemicals, rubber, plastics, paper, steel, and other metals.
    Many of the CSB investigations have taken place at facilities
    represented by our union.
        Our union believes that every worker deserves a safe
    workplace. The CSB's mission and investigations are imperative
    to reaching that goal.
        The importance of the CSB is prominent with us. We want to
    emphasize four major points: The importance of the CSB, the
    need to fill vacant seats on the board, the necessity of
    appropriate funding, and the need to have the agency
    sufficiently staffed to investigate accidents. The CSB
    investigations and videos have prevented future injuries and
    saved lives.
        My first experience with the CSB involved a triple fatality
    at a paper mill. In July 2008, a tank containing a mixture of
    recycled paper pulp and water exploded, killing three workers.
    The CSB found the contents of the tank contained highly
    flammable hydrogen gas, a byproduct of bacterial decomposition
    of organic fiber waste inside the tank.
        One of the CSB's recommendations was using combustible gas
    monitoring prior to performing hot work. The CSB eventually
    developed a safety bulletin on the hazards of hot work.
        Although we were pleased with the CSB issuing a safety
    bulletin, we were disappointed when they were unable to produce
    a full report and video about the incident due to understaffing
    at that moment of CSB history.
        In February 2017, I again worked with the CSB on another
    triple fatality. Their investigation, in part, exposed how
    OSHA's Process Safety Management Standard is too limited in
    scope.
        CSB reports and videos have led to changes in industry
    practice and regulations. The CSB reports and videos are
    applicable across many industries. We show the CSB produced
    videos at our trainings and safety meetings to prevent future
    incidents.
        In order for the CSB to produce high quality investigations
    and videos, the board must have members who support the
    mission. The board's primary function is to deploy
    investigative staff to perform root and contributing cause
    investigations. Board seats need to be filled with a diverse
    slate of qualified individuals.
        There is longstanding bipartisan support in Congress and
    among a number of labor and industry stakeholders for a fully
    funded CSB. However, over the last several years, the
    Administration has proposed eliminating funding for the CSB.
    The agency has fewer than 50 staff and a budget of $12 million
    to accomplish an important mission.
        Our union has worked hard to ensure that Members of
    Congress understand how important the work of this small agency
    is. Historically, the quality of the CSB reports have been
    high, and the dedication of the professional staff is obvious,
    in our experience.
        However, the CSB currently does not have sufficient staff
    of investigators. We are concerned that understaffing will lead
    to an increased backlog of open investigations and the
    inability to deploy to needed investigations. Our union
    supports CSB investigators, and the value, the thoroughness of
    the investigations they conduct.
        In conclusion, our union hopes that all the members of this
    Committee understand the importance of this small agency.
    Bipartisan support has contributed to the CSB's success and its
    mission to make the Nation's workplaces and communities safer.
        We look forward to continuing to work with lawmakers and
    the CSB to protect our members, communities, and prevent future
    incidents.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sallman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, we all, in a bipartisan way,
    appreciate all of you being here today, and especially the
    attention you have to the urgency of the issue.
        Mr. Jahn, can you explain how the work of the Chemical
    Safety Board complements the safety initiatives of your own
    organization, and vice versa? Because it works both ways.
        Mr. Jahn. Certainly. I am happy to discuss that, Mr.
    Chairman. As I mentioned in my opening testimony, our
    Responsible Care Program actually has a process safety code in
    it that requires them to look at their site specific risks and
    develop plans to mitigate that.
        The CSB's work, in terms of its investigations and its
    studies, very carefully informs our members of those risks and
    previous incidents, and allows them to take appropriate steps
    to try to mitigate that in the future. Not only does that help
    in terms of the program itself, but we also, as I did mention,
    we have seven regional networks within ACC where we share this
    process safety information among those site safety
    professionals.
        We share that, and we also have topical workshops. We have
    a variety of other ways to educate our members on the CSB's
    work.
        We also engage them through their stakeholder outreach. We
    just had a meeting with the CSB to share some additional
    information on responsible care as recently as 2 weeks ago, I
    believe, so we are actively engaged with them. Again, we very
    much feel like their efforts complement what we do, but do not
    duplicate them.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Kadri, can I ask you the same
    question; how the work of your organization complements the
    safety initiatives with the Chemical Safety Board, and vice
    versa?
        Mr. Kadri. Absolutely. Thank you. If you look at the
    mission of the Chemical Safety Board, it is really to prevent
    process safety incidents by learning from it.
        Similarly, if I look at the mission of my organization, it
    is to prevent major process safety incidents. We do it in two
    different ways, but really come to the same conclusion. What
    the Chemical Safety Board does is really to understand what
    went wrong, create the learning, and then bring out the help to
    the industry for the future to improve.
        What CCPS does is to really do more forward looking, as we
    understand the risk, identify the safeguards, and make sure
    that we prevent those incidents. Really, what we have been
    doing with the Chemical Safety Board is taking a lot of the
    learning, many of our books have really taken the learning from
    the Chemical Safety Board and included it into those learnings.
        Many of those incidents have been included in our process
    safety incident data base, and at the same time, we also help
    CSB in implementing some of their recommendations. The one I
    would mention here is, one actually Senator Carper just talked
    about is Hurricane Harvey. The extreme weather response and
    extreme weather risk involved, Chemical Safety Board actually
    asked CCPS to develop guidance so that the industry can kind of
    look ahead of time and be prepared, so that has been doing.
        Second one, actually, a few years back, the Chemical Safety
    Board asked that we initiate chemical process safety education
    in undergraduate chemical engineering organizations. That
    recommendation has actually included now, that now that process
    safety is applied in all engineering curriculum.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Mr. Jahn, here is another question. Looking at the last
    past decade, the EPA's Inspector General and the House
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have identified
    numerous instances of mismanagement at that Chemical Safety
    Board. Could you explain why it is so important that we have a
    strong, qualified, impartial leadership at that level at the
    Chemical Safety Board?
        Mr. Jahn. Again, the process safety information that they
    share with our industry is vital in terms of our industry's
    performance. So we agree that the CSB, its board members, and
    including its chair, should be held accountable for their work
    and their performance.
        Just to demonstrate our industry's commitment to
    accountability and transparency, and one thing I did not
    mention in my earlier answer was that we require members as
    part of responsible care to record and report process safety,
    emissions data, water consumption, and other metrics that we
    then report on our website, publicly. So we live by that, and
    we feel like the government partners that we work with should
    have similar accountability.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you all.
        We will have a chance to hear from some of the other
    members.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I don't ask a lot of yes or no questions, but I am going to
    just ask a couple of them today, so we can move along.
        We will start with you, Chris. Would your organization
    oppose a proposal to completely eliminate the Chemical Safety
    Board like the proposals that were included in the President's
    last three budgets?
        Mr. Jahn. We would not support the elimination of the
    Chemical Safety Board.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Mr. Kadri.
        Mr. Kadri. We will not support that recommendation.
        Senator Carper. Steve.
        Mr. Sallman. We would not support that.
        Senator Carper. OK, thank you. I have no more questions.
        No, I have more questions.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Second question: Do you all agree that it
    would be best if the, well, for everybody, the folks that work
    there, the owners, stakeholders, shareholders, people in the
    communities, first responders, do you all believe it would be
    best if the board had five qualified, independent, confirmed
    board members?
        Mr. Jahn. Yes, sir, and I would add just that, again, from
    our experience, we do not have someone on the board right now
    who has industry safety process experience, so I would add that
    caveat.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Mr. Kadri.
        Mr. Kadri. I will actually add one more thing to the
    question that Senator Barrasso asked. It is not only that you
    need a strong and technical expertise, but you also need the
    impartiality. Because the recommendation and the outcome coming
    out from the board has far reaching impact, and maintaining the
    impartiality will create credibility and gives that
    implementation much more success.
        Senator Carper. All right, thanks for that.
        Mr. Sallman. I would like to add that the board should be
    made up of a diverse slate of people with process experience,
    investigative experience, and dealing with various
    stakeholders, so that everybody brings a different view to the
    board to make it well rounded. That experience, I believe, and
    we believe, would help this board succeed in being able to view
    what failed, how we could improve to go forward with lessons
    learned, and prevent those tragedies from happening again.
        Senator Carper. OK, thank you.
        One more, if we could, and this is for each of you. Do you
    believe that the President's repeated efforts to eliminate the
    agency would probably make it harder to find qualified and
    independent experts who are willing to serve, or easier?
        Mr. Jahn. Our position is that the CSB, not only does it
    need to be full of board members and fully staffed, but it has
    to have the resources it needs to do its job, so it needs to be
    fully funded; an appropriate budget and human resources are
    absolutely necessary.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Same question, Mr. Kadri.
        Mr. Kadri. Yes. I will say that those who are coming in
    from the industry and other areas to support the board
    membership and also the staff, they also need some support from
    the Government and also from the support structure, that the
    risk they are taking to go in, there is a reward there.
        I think currently, because of the environment, I think
    there is a lot more resistance in that area. So I believe
    strongly that we need a five member board, and it should be
    very diversified and impartial.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        And Mr. Sallman, just really quick, same question. Do you
    think it makes it easier or harder to find suitable
    replacements on the board if this Administration 3 years in a
    row has been trying to eliminate the board?
        Mr. Sallman. Certainly harder, when, why would you want to
    apply for a job when it has been proposed to be eliminated and
    not funded? This is critical work, and when these people are
    going to be responding, they are going to be dealing with a
    loss of life. They are going to be dealing with coworkers who
    signed a job application to go in and go to work, not see what
    they have seen. Those people have to bring a special talent to
    this position.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        One last question this round. When the Chemical Safety
    Board published its report following the Arkema Incident, it
    found that the explosions occurred in part because Arkema had
    not planned for this kind of flooding that we know climate
    change has caused and will continue to cause.
        I was on the phone last night with a young man, not so
    young anymore, but whose roots were in Delaware, his father had
    been our Congressman, and been our Mayor, Republican, but a
    close friend. The son now lives in Australia, and we talked
    about what they are going through there in terms of wildfires
    that are destroying large swaths of the country, killing
    hundreds of millions of animals, birds, and so forth.
        The question is, I want all of you to try to answer this.
    Do you believe that climate change is real, that is caused
    largely by humans, not entirely, but largely by humans and that
    it has the potential to cause future costly and dangerous
    chemical safety accidents if steps aren't taken to analyze the
    risks and protect against them?
        Mr. Sallman, would you go first?
        Mr. Sallman. Climate change already has and continues to
    cause problems in workplaces, not only from a chemical
    standpoint, but also just working conditions. More and more of
    our members talk about heat stress, heat stroke. When you look
    at the fires that have happened in California, what does that
    do to the electrical grid? If we don't have backup systems to
    protect us when things go wrong, worse things will happen.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Kadri, please.
        Mr. Kadri. I would say that climate change has impacted. I
    do not have the expertise in that area, but I do believe that
    the, as we see, the temperature rise, that would have ultimate
    impact.
        Senator Carper. Same question, Mr. Jahn.
        Mr. Jahn. ACC believes that climate change is a global
    challenge that requires long term commitment and action by
    every segment of society. When we talk about extreme weather
    events like Hurricane Harvey, clearly, we need to have disaster
    mitigation and prevention to take those types of events into
    account.
        Senator Carper. I spoke to our witnesses, colleagues,
    before this started, and told them I am always looking for, as
    a member of this Committee, I have always looked for ways to do
    good things for our health, cleaner air, cleaner water, better
    public health for our planet with respect to climate change.
    The intersection I always look for is making progress on those
    fronts, creating jobs and economic opportunity, and that is the
    Holy Grail, the one that we are pursuing, and maybe we will
    have a chance to talk with you about that some more later on.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and welcome to the
    witnesses.
        Two questions for Mr. Jahn.
        First of all, welcome to your first hearing as the new
    president. We had a very good working relationship on a
    bipartisan basis with your predecessor, Mr. Dooley, and I want
    to recognize that and thank him for that.
        One of the areas in which we had a very good bipartisan
    working relationship with Mr. Dooley was on TSCA reform,
    chemical safety reform. After the bill passed with strong
    bipartisan support and with your support and good work, your
    organization's support and good work, we then ran into
    administrative problems that I believe violated the bipartisan
    spirit of the legislation over at EPA.
        We think we have solved those problems. I have confidence
    in Alexandra Dunn, who is the new person over there.
        Can I ask your commitment that you and your organization
    will help support a fair and thorough administrative process to
    support TSCA in the same bipartisan spirit that the bill was
    passed?
        Mr. Jahn. Senator, I thank you for that warm welcome as the
    next victim here at ACC, and we look forward to working with
    you. I noticed that Senator Sullivan was here earlier. We are
    working together on some things.
        Senator Whitehouse. That is my next topic, so go ahead on
    about TSCA.
        Mr. Jahn. OK. I didn't want to steal your thunder; I
    apologize. So yes, we will commit to working with you to make
    sure that the amendments to TSCA that were passed in 2016 move
    forward in an appropriate manner. That is absolutely very
    important for us as an industry.
        Senator Whitehouse. I think it is important when you have
    bipartisan agreement on something to reward, encourage, and
    honor that bipartisan agreement by then not hopping over to the
    executive administration of that and trying to undo and cause
    damage and problems over there.
        I don't think that the ACC has been involved in that. I
    think you have been helpful, actually, at trying to get through
    that, and I hope you will continue, so thank you for that.
        So your second topic, of course, was another area where we
    have made significant bipartisan progress, and that is on the
    question of marine plastic waste, ocean plastic waste. It was
    with Cal Dooley and ACC's support that we were able to get the
    first Save Our Seas bill passed, which was a very minor piece
    of legislation in terms of its effect, but it established the
    proposition that the Senate and the Congress on a bipartisan
    basis were willing to legislate in this space, something which
    was not then a proven proposition.
        So we proved that proposition, and we focused on the worst
    offenders, which are the five Asian countries, and the ten
    foreign rivers that produce, respectively, 50 percent and
    nearly 90 percent of the ocean plastic waste.
        We then moved on and just recently, in the Senate, again,
    unanimously passed Save Our Seas 2.0, which still has to work
    its way through the House, and they have seven committees that
    want a piece of it, and it takes a little bit of doing,
    procedurally, but which I have a lot of confidence will
    actually get done.
        So, Senator Sullivan, my friend and my colleague in these
    efforts, and I are already starting to put on our thinking caps
    and organize with our staffs what Save Our Seas 3.0 should look
    like, because while 2.0 was real legislation that created a
    real difference, it is a huge problem, and it is one where I
    think we need more support from the industry. I think there is
    more room for bipartisan and perhaps even unanimous progress on
    this issue.
        I want to ask you your thoughts about a SOS 3.0. Do you
    believe there is more that needs to be done? Are you willing to
    support us in finding those things that can be done in a
    bipartisan, even unanimous fashion?
        In that regard, let me just put into the record also the
    July 19th letter of welcome that Senator Sullivan and I wrote
    to you on this topic.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Jahn. Thank you very much, and thank you for your
    leadership on this important issue. As you said, it is a
    significant global challenge, and you have our full commitment
    to work with you.
        I hope that you are correct, we will be able to work
    through those seven committees in the House, we will get that
    bill done and have some meaningful change, and then we can move
    on to 3.0. As you know, and I know you agree----
        Senator Whitehouse. That 2.0 doesn't do the trick. There is
    more to be done. It was good, but not sufficient.
        Mr. Jahn. Absolutely. As you well know, in regard to the
    Alliance to End Plastic Waste that our members have created in
    the past year and committed, publicly, private funds of $1.5
    billion throughout the chemical supply chain to solve that
    issue. So we are putting real money behind this. We are
    dedicated to the proposition, and we will work with you to move
    forward.
        Senator Whitehouse. We look forward to working with you. If
    I could note for the Chairman, I went to the Our Oceans
    Conference in Oslo as a congressional delegation of one. It was
    a strong focus at that international conference on marine
    plastic.
        Unilever, which is one of the biggest consumer products
    corporations in the world, and which has a very, very
    significant footprint in the United States, pledged then that
    they were going to go to a point where for every ounce of
    plastic that they put into the economy through their products,
    they were going to extract the same amount of plastic from the
    environment and bring it back to proper disposal, which does
    two things.
        First of all, it makes them plastic waste neutral, which is
    a very important thing for a company. And second, it creates a
    market for the plastic waste that is out there and gives
    somebody some encouragement to find, now somebody who is
    picking that stuff up has a business model to go to Unilever
    and say, you are going to need to buy a lot of this stuff to
    honor that pledge.
        So for both of those reasons, I just wanted to call out
    Unilever as one of the international players in this for having
    made what I think was a particularly strong proposal. Of
    course, I support that kind of an effort, so thank you very
    much, Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse. By the way, let me thank you, because a
    lot of this happened because of your support and leadership as
    Chairman and because of the support of our Ranking Member. If
    it weren't for the leadership of the Chairman and the Ranking
    Member, none of this stuff gets done, so while I talk about
    Dan, and we do a lot of this work together, I also want to make
    sure it is clear that it is a unanimous effort.
        Senator Barrasso. Unanimous support of the Committee,
    everybody together. Also I point out, and you may have noted
    what Bill Gates had announced the other day, and I talked to
    him about it on Sunday, this program for Microsoft which is
    very similar to what you just described with regard to Unilever
    and plastics. He has said that about the carbon footprint that
    has been left by Microsoft, not going forward, but going back
    to the founding of the company in 1975.
        To do it, he is making a huge investment in the technology
    that we had been working on for carbon capture and
    sequestration and actually air capture of carbon dioxide in the
    atmosphere to then go to sequester or putting into products the
    sorts of things that we looked at in Aberdeen, Scotland, with
    the research laboratories there trying to make those products
    commercially competitive. So it is not just in plastics that it
    is happening; it seems to be happening, and this may be a new
    model.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Making sure that the market works
    in these areas is, I think, our top responsibility.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Just a follow up on Senator Whitehouse's
    comments. I think he mentioned at Oslo, he was a delegation of
    one. I would point out he probably had them outnumbered, even
    as only one.
        I want to commend Sheldon and Danny for their great
    leadership and work on this.
        There is another Senator, Senator Udall that from out in
    New Mexico has a strong interest in this issue as well. He
    focused a little bit more on root causes, which is actually one
    of the things that the Chemical Safety Board does, it focuses
    on root causes.
        It is not the time to have the conversation now, but I
    think there has to be an economic opportunity for someone to
    come along and invent, I know work is going on right now,
    probably all over the world, to come up with plastics that meet
    our needs as consumers, but actually do not degrade our
    environment. Whoever can come up with that, they will do just
    fine.
        Go ahead, Mr. Jahn.
        Mr. Jahn. If I could interject on that, that work is
    already underway, and that is happening. Members are literally
    invested billions of dollars in what we call circular economy,
    in bringing those products back in as feedstock to produce new
    product. So we are going as quickly as we possibly can on that
    issue.
        Senator Carper. I would urge you, Mr. Jahn indicated to us
    he is just now beginning to do member calls, and we welcome
    those. There was a death in his family, which we mourn and
    regret. Now that you can start seeing us, we would welcome
    that. That is maybe one of the things we can talk about, and
    you can share with us what is going on.
        I would also urge you, early in your visits here, customer
    calls with members, go see Senator Udall, just to kind of
    understand what he is thinking. I think he would welcome
    hearing what you just shared with all of us.
        Mr. Jahn. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. The idea to create a virtuous cycle,
    virtuous circle, is something I always look forward to doing.
    If we can find ways to harness economic forces that actually do
    the right thing, that is all the better.
        There is just one more issue I want to touch on, if I can.
    It is not just climate change risk that the Chemical Safety
    Board reports have made recommendations about. Many of the
    reports point out systemic safety, or chemical process
    failures, that should result in industry making changes to
    prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future.
        My question, this is really a question for all three of
    you, if you would. Since we currently have an Administration
    that we can safely assume may never take regulatory action to
    require measures to mitigate against climate change, or other
    chemical safety risks, could each of you just say a couple
    words about how important the continued existence of a fully
    funded Chemical Safety Board with five qualified and
    independent board members is?
        Mr. Jahn, would you like to lead off?
        Mr. Jahn. Certainly. So, a fully funded, fully staffed
    effective board is vital to our industry in both the
    investigations that the CSB conducts and the studies that they
    share with our industry. We feed that into our process, into
    those regional networks that we have that we share that process
    safety information, as well as the topical workshops and other
    education that we have for our industry and the requirements
    that they have under responsible care to plan, prepare for, and
    drill on response to potential incidents.
        So we take that very seriously, and it is a top priority
    for us.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Mr. Kadri.
        Mr. Kadri. Yes. CCPS actually has seen the advantage and
    benefit of a fully functional Chemical Safety Board. We also
    have seen a bit of a disadvantage when the board is not
    functional. So I believe that having a fully functional
    Chemical Safety Board is very beneficial to all stakeholders.
    It is industry, it is academia, it is community, and also
    regulated sites.
        Senator Carper. You get the last word.
        Mr. Sallman. Sure. It is critical that we have a full board
    and a chair, and I say this because we have a few plants that
    we are waiting on for those reports to come. Philadelphia, Port
    Neches, Texas, where our members were exposed to the flash
    fires and the hazards.
        It is not only important to learn and improve, but it is
    also the community. Our members live in those communities, and
    when you have seen the devastation that was going on, that is
    our members' homes that you are seeing.
        This isn't just a workplace issue. This is also an
    environmental issue that is important to our members because
    people live in those communities.
        We are also watching the inspection that is going on and
    the investigation with the box company, where a pressure vessel
    exploded. We are the largest union in the paper sector, that we
    don't represent that workplace, but we are eagerly awaiting the
    results of that, so that we can take those lessons learned and
    apply it to all of our other workplaces, so that nobody has to
    go through that again, or the community.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Sallman, at one point in your
    testimony, I think you used a term, hot work, I think you
    called it hot work. Would you just take a minute and tell us
    what that means?
        I have some ideas in my own life what hot work is. I used
    to be a midshipman in the Navy. My freshman midshipman cruise,
    I was on a destroyer, and they put all the young midshipmen
    down in the engine room. There was one large blower that
    actually brought cool air down to one place. The Chief Petty
    Officer always stood there, and the rest of us just sweltered,
    and that was some of the hottest work I have ever done, but I
    want to hear what you are talking about when you say hot work.
        Mr. Sallman. Sure, great question, and I can elaborate. Hot
    work is anytime you are doing cutting, grinding, welding,
    anything that could produce a spark or heat as a source of
    ignition.
        And that is important to us because we have learned the
    hard way. As I have mentioned in my testimony, my very first
    exposure to a triple fatality involved hot work, where one of
    our members noticed that there was a problem with a flinger on
    top of the tank. He knew that the bolts had broken loose on the
    flanges, and so they had to go up there and repair that by
    welding.
        In the headspace of that tank was hydrogen, and our members
    did not know. They were thinking it is water and recycled pulp,
    I mean, boxes that you would collect from anywhere in a store,
    you would put it in there, you basically heat that up. Then
    that basically decay created that hydrogen gas in the headspace
    of the tank. So while they were welding, all of a sudden, they
    felt the tank start to rumble, and they heard noises, and then
    it literally blew up on them and ended up taking the lives of
    three members.
        The importance about understanding the hot work, I will
    tell you how far this went, we not only followed that from the
    tank, we followed it through the entire process, where that
    content went. And lo and behold, we found out, even on our
    process machines, that we were having that hydrogen gas
    elsewhere in the facility. So now we had to expand our hot
    work, not only from tanks, but also to the process of
    equipment.
        Had we not had the learnings from the CSB, we may not have
    been able to make those corrective actions using the hierarchy
    of controls.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you. Thank you for that
    explanation. We have some hot work of our own to do later
    today. We thank you for your testimony and for the work that
    you do.
        Mr. Sallman. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. We look forward to working with you on
    other issues.
        Chris, congratulations on being named to succeed a very
    good man.
        Mr. Jahn. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Let me just finish off with a couple of
    questions. One for all of you.
        Currently we are out a chairperson, only two sitting
    members. Last summer, President Trump nominated Katherine Lemos
    to serve as chairperson; the Committee approved her nomination,
    unanimous basis in September. If she is not confirmed by next
    week, the board will lose its quorum and will be severely
    impaired.
        Is it fair to say that you all agree that we should not let
    the Chemical Safety Board be reduced to one member?
        Mr. Jahn. Yes.
        Mr. Kadri. I agree.
        Mr. Sallman. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. And then, the other issue is how you can
    recruit good people to serve in some of these Government
    positions. What we continue to hear is, there is just so much
    uncertainty that the confirmation process itself can in some
    way discourage highly qualified individuals from seeking to
    serve on the Chemical Safety Board. I would just be interested
    in hearing from the three of you on that.
        Mr. Jahn. I would salute you all, and the House as well, in
    terms of your leadership of continuing supporting the mission
    of the board, fully funding it, and in fact, increasing funding
    for that and sending that message out to this community that
    this is a priority. It is an important mission, and that it has
    had the full faith and support from this Committee.
        I think that sends a tremendous message, and that we try to
    amplify to our community.
        Mr. Kadri. I think you picked up a good point, as how would
    you attract the right level of people. Now, CCPS has 225
    corporate members, and each of those corporate members actually
    provide us the lead process safety individual in our committee.
        Many of them would be well qualified individuals and would
    be interested. But I think that the current environment
    actually would have some resistance.
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Sallman, anything you would like to
    add?
        Mr. Sallman. I would encourage outreach to find people and
    help them understand what these positions are, and look for a
    diverse group of people. We have even talked to management
    counterparts that we have good relationships and work well with
    them, and some of those people have since retired out of the
    health and safety movement.
        There is a lot of talent on there that could be harvested
    and work at these facilities. But if they are going to go to
    this agency, and work, they need to know that Congress has
    their back, that they are going to be funded, and that they are
    going to have the support and the resources that they need to
    perform their jobs and do it well.
        Senator Barrasso. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into
    the record a letter from the American Chemical Society in
    support of confirming Dr. Lemos and advancing additional
    nominees.
        Without objection, that will be added.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. There are no more questions. You may get
    questions in writing--there may be another question.
        Senator Carper. Not a question, just a quick thing.
        I said as an aside to the Chairman, several minutes ago,
    that we are going to meet, hopefully soon when the impeachment
    process has concluded.
        But one of the things that I hadn't thought would be on an
    agenda, a good agenda item, just this is figuring out how we
    get not just avoid having one person on the board, we really
    need five. We need five, fully well qualified people.
        I understand that, and correct me if I am wrong, but if the
    board is reduced to one member in August, it will be reduced to
    one member in August, if Kristen Kulinowski is not confirmed, I
    think that is true. Can you check me on that?
        Mr. Jahn. We will follow up on that.
        Senator Carper. OK, if you would, for the record, thank
    you.
        Thanks so much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse, anything else?
        Senator Carper. Maybe if she is not renominated, I think.
        Mr. Jahn. I believe that is correct.
        Senator Carper. I think that is correct.
        All right, thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, members may submit questions for
    the record. I know a number of members are at the White House
    for the signing of the USMCA.
        The hearing record is going to remain open for 2 weeks.
        I want to thank all of you for being here, for your time,
    and your testimony.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]