[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]