On June 11, 2015, the Coalition hosted a tele-briefing on the pace of President Obama’s August 1, 2013 Executive Order to modernize agency rules and policies to prevent chemical plant disasters.
Listen to the audio recording of the call:
The transcript from the call is below.
Moderator: Rick Hind
June 11, 2015
12:00 p.m. ET
Operator:
This is Conference #: 62961799
Rick Hind:
Good afternoon. This is Rick Hind, legislator director of Greenpeace. I’ll be moderating this call. Welcome to all of you who called in. Today, we will hear from a few speakers who’ve been active with the Coalition to Prevent Chemical disasters regarding the President’s Executive Order issued in August of 2013 and the progress on that and in particular on the use of EPA’s authority to prevent chemical disasters.
Our first speaker today will be Illinois State Representative Cynthia Soto. She’ll be followed by Kim Nibarger from the United Steelworkers, a long time investigator of accidents, fatal accidents, with the union that represents the most chemical workers in the U.S., Juan Parras and Yudith Nieto from t.e.j.a.s., Texas Environmental Justice Advisory Service in Houston, ground zero on this issue with over 101 facilities in Texas that put 100,000 or more people at risk. Then Dr. Peter Orris, professor of University of Illinois, will talk about the health effects of this kind of an accident.
And then we will open it up to questions. And we have some resource people also available for questions from the Coalition. They include Ron White and Amanda Frank from the Center for Effective Government, Carli Jensen, an attorney with U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Jerry Poje, the founding member of the Chemical Safety Board, and Michele Roberts with Environmental Justice Health Alliance. So without any further delay, I’m going to turn it over to Illinois State Representative Cynthia Soto.
Cynthia Soto:
Thank you very much. Good morning to everyone. Thank you for joining us. This is State Representative Cynthia Soto. I represent this, Illinois – the state of Illinois, the fourth district. I have some of Logan Square, Humboldt Park, Wicker Park, Bucktown, West Town, and Ukrainian Village, very diverse community. And I’m very concerned regarding the chemical disasters that are out there. I know that I represent Chicago, not the suburbs on – straight down Navy Pier, so we’re very high population community. So I’m just really concerned that if you know we need to get going and looking at these issues, that we need to start rolling that ball. It’s very important. And you know it – it’s – when I look at the numbers that are out there, they’re very alarming.
I know that there’s been some accidents here in Chicago. We don’t have all the numbers. We have some of them. But I think that we need to start moving on that. You know being so many millions of people living in the United States, I think it’s very important that we start you know moving along, you know, regarding preventing chemical disasters.
Rick Hind:
Thank you, Cynthia. And in fact, yet the – I think Kim Nibarger can also talk about the fact that there are safer alternatives either in use or ready to be used but not yet applied in the most dangerous facilities. Kim, are you – are you there?
Kim Nibarger:
Yes, I am. Good afternoon. And I want to thank everybody for getting on this call. My name is Kim Nibarger. I’m a health and safety specialist for the United Steelworkers. We represent a number of workers in the petrochemical industry. And our members are responsible for about 2/3 of domestic oil production in the U.S.
I just wanted to share a couple of quick numbers with you. And keep in mind these are only from oil sites that we represent. Since 2005, we’ve had 56 fatalities. And industry reported fires since 2007 have averaged 44 a year through the end of 2014. So this is just a very small picture of the overall problem. This is the – only the perspective from USW represented facilities. And keep in mind that unionized workers typically have more protection on the job as well as a forum to raise safety concerns whereas nonunionized workers typically only have the opportunity to get fired for raising safety concerns. So they obviously don’t make too much noise about safety.
We’ve been involved with the presidency also since released in a – and have sent comments. We’ve testified at congressional hearings to get action to improve safety. We’ve met with industry trade associations to work on improvements. And we’re currently working with California to update the process safety management standard there.
So if these events were rare occurrences, I could see why people would not be very concerned. But these events happen on a nearly– on a nearly weekly basis. And the only good thing is we don’t kill people every time something happens. But it also makes this issue to not seem so urgent because it doesn’t happen in your neighborhood or you don’t hear about it. But for the folks at work in these facilities and their families and friends who live near the facilities, it’s very chilling.
Even though this industry claims it’s safer to work in a refinery than in a retail store based on OSHA 300 numbers, which are personal injury numbers, that number has nothing to do with the real hazards, which are process safety hazards that are present in the petrochemical industry. It’s past time that the administration take action on updating the process safety management or PSM standard. The regulation is 20 years old and not doing as it was intended.
The PSM standard needs to be strengthened to give OSHA the ability to do its job. And the language needs to be enforced so that companies are responsible for safety in a manner that it will be improved and maintained.
We continue to work with the administration regulators who improve worker safety. But until the public’s outraged enough to put pressure on lawmakers like they did with the nuclear industry and the airline industry, we’re going to continue to see workers killed and communities polluted.
So I think that the number – the earlier number of fatalities and fires are a strong indicator that the standard is not working as intended. And we need some more effort going forward.
So thank, Rick. I’ll give it back to you.
Cynthia Soto:
Rick, can I say something really quick? This is Representative Soto.
Rick Hind:
All right. Sure.
Cynthia Soto:
OK. You know it kind of – you know with what I just heard, do we have a hotline so if people are at risk to lose their job because they’re putting a complaint, why don’t we do like an anonymous hotline there or something like that where they don’t maybe have to say their name. They can just tell us what’s happening. I think that would be very helpful. They could help us in the future to bring it out there to the media.
Rick Hind:
Good suggestion. Kim, have you dealt with that at all in the – in the industry?
Kim Nibarger:
Well, there is a whistleblower protection. But the companies know how that works. And typically people are reluctant to use it because of the way the requirements to report an incident and the follow up. So you know while we have whistleblower protection, it’s not as effective as it could be.
Rick Hind:
All right. So…
Cynthia Soto:
Well, we need to find a way. We need to find an alternative to at least try to protect people from losing their job. You know where there’s a will, there’s a way. I think that if we look into this or if someone can maybe do some research and see what other states are doing, maybe that’s something that we need to follow up on.
Rick Hind:
Right. Yes. So thank you for that.
Cynthia Soto:
But it has to change. If we have these issues right now, it’s because there is you know – we’re lacking something. And we need to look at other states and see what they’re doing because no one should be at risk.
If they’re going to – if they’re in harm’s way, there’s no way that they should be there at risk you know to – I mean, do you wait till something happens to you? No, I don’t think so. I think we need to find an alternative to what we have now.
Rick Hind:
Well, and the most famous case, the Bhopal disaster – a – an – a journalist Rajkumar Keswani warned against that there was an accident pending at the Bhopal plant several months before the accident. And he was ignored and in fact defamed until he was proven right. So we do need to address that.
Cynthia Soto:
And I’m sure there’s a shortage.
Rick Hind:
I’ll move on.
Cynthia Soto:
I’m sorry. And I’m sure there’s a shortage of even inspectors that come out. You know even from the state, you’d – you have different department that send out inspectors. There’s not enough – not enough for the – as the states are. There’s not enough people that we have to go out there, so that’s another issue too.
Rick Hind:
Right. And if they go to – you see that problem we face – if the whistleblower comes to a journalist or us and has information that’s not a crime and they share it, both of us could be legally liable for taking in you know property of a company. So there’s a – there’s some legal issues that need to be addressed. But having a government investigator, talk to them is the best. In any event, I’m wondering if Juan Parras is able to join us now.
Juan Parras:
Yes. I’m on the line.
Rick Hind:
Great. Well, and OK. Thanks. Juan is from Texas Environmental Justice Advisory Service in Houston and lives with the – one of the most intense areas of chemical and refinery operations in the United States.
Cynthia Soto:
I’m a fellow Texan too, Cynthia Soto.
Juan Parras:
I just wanted to say that since March, the 28th of 2007 is that the Chemical Security Board issued a statement saying that – and this is regarding the BP Texas explosion – that never should we allow another incident or accident like that to occur. And that was in 2007.
And then in 2011, of course, we had meetings with the administrator. And after that, most recently, Obama issued an executive order basically saying that you know we need to address those issues.
So I just say that to remind you that this has been an ongoing process since the BP explosion in the Texas City that killed 15 people. And that the same issues that were discussed back in 2007 are currently still being discussed. That we – it should not be a voluntary system of guidance. It’s we should consider the risk – real risk factors and mandate that there’ll be stronger policies regulating you know what chemicals are used and switch to alternative chemicals.
As Rick stated, in the Houston area, we have 101 facilities that place literally millions of people at risk. And as long as we do not move forward and really deal with mandatory requirements on safety issues and risk issues, communities will continue to be at risk. I think this is an opportunity that we really need to push on. And we’re here to do anything that we possibly can to make that happen.
And I’m looking forward to real progressive initiatives being taken to protect human life and also deal with health issues not only with workers but also with communities that are next to the chemical plants. Thank you.
Rick Hind:
Thank you, Juan. And our next speaker is Peter Orris. But I don’t know if he’s on the line yet. So we may go to Q&A. I just wanted to fill in on a couple of things that people have just said.
This coalition had a meeting with the EPA on February 11th, in which we went over in detail our concern for the slow pace of this implementing the Executive Order. Those of you who’ve looked at the fact sheet that EPA issues earlier this week noticed that there were several subject areas. The area we’re most concerned with and we think most important is modernizing policies and regulations. That’s the only part of this that really is permanent and applies to everyone everywhere.
And it’s in that area that the EPA and even OSHA – but OSHA is so far away from getting this done before the next administration. The EPA is the only one and also the only agency with the greatest authority to actually implement the conversion of these facilities that we’re talking about, which would then add great benefits throughout the industry in terms of prevention ethics.
So that’s – that’s what we’re – we’re concerned with. And in the meeting on February 11th, EPA said, “Well, we expect to have it done within a year.” And we pointed out there that their notice on OMB’s web site says that they’re not due to begin a proposed rulemaking until September of this year.
If you assume a 15 month regulatory process on average, they are not going to finish before they leave office. They did insist they would complete it in 2016. And we’ve been saying they should start sooner than September and complete it in June of 2016. Otherwise, the next Congress could easily reverse it with the Congressional Review Act or the next President could say it’s a midnight rulemaking and choose not to implement it. So that’s kind of the – where the stage is set.
Again, I have also on the line as a resource speaker is Carli Jensen, an attorney with U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Ron White, Amanda Frank with the Center for Effective Government, which just issued a report recently on the number of schools and school children at risk near these facilities. Jerry Poje, founding member of the Chemical Safety Board, which just held a meeting discussing this yesterday here in Washington, and Michele Roberts with Environmental Justice Health Alliance, which issued a report last year called “Who’s In Danger” showing the reality that communities most close to these facilities tend to be low-income communities of color. With that, I will open it up to questions from the journalist on the call.
Cynthia Soto:
I want to – and this is Cynthia Soto again. I’m sorry for interrupting, but I’m going to have to hang up. Thank you.
Rick Hind:
OK. Thank you.
Cynthia Soto:
Thank you. Bye bye, everyone.
Operator:
At this time, if you would like to ask a question, simply press star and the number one on your telephone keypad. That is star, one. We’ll pause to compile the Q&A roster. And there are no audio questions from the phone.
Rick Hind:
While we wait …
Michele Roberts:
While we’re waiting …
Rick Hind:
Maybe, people who are the resource people I mentioned – was that you, Michele there? So just maybe you had a few words. Thanks.
Michele Roberts:
Yes. I was so simply going to say while we’re waiting – and it’s important – and thank you very much, Juan, for laying out so beautifully what the many communities living fenceline are actually pushing for. It is important for many of you on this – for all of you on this call to know the Juan’s community is not the only community living in harm’s way such as this.
The Environmental Justice Health Alliance is an alliance of over 30 impacted communities if you will and advocates who serve these communities in at least 13 states. Juan’s the Texas Environmental Justice Advisory Services is just one of the many communities that are part of the EJHA that has been pushing to move our government to take more of precautionary stance, precautionary in that we must incorporate a chemical management system that is based on precaution, thereby using safer alternatives and incorporating safer processes.
Just as recent as yesterday, there was a spill in the waters up in Pennsylvania that could actually impact the Chesapeake Bay as we’re approaching season of crabs and what have you, if you will. What is very stressful about this particular recent spill is that we don’t even know what the composition of chemicals are that are actually contaminating the water bodies right now in Pennsylvania. So all to say this is the reality of the nature of communities. We must make a moral and conscious effort to change these ways. It’s a good thing that we had the state representative on because our local of our state and local administrations are actually grappling with their budgets right now to address just the basic issues that they are confronted with.
And so now, in addition to that, these different disasters and catastrophes place even greater financial burden on these local municipalities and rural areas. With that said, we agree with Juan Parras and the folks out of Texas that we have had enough with voluntary measures.
We do not want voluntary measures. They do not work. We must have mandatory processes to better protect our communities and the workers. Thank you so very much.
Rick Hind:
Thanks, Michele. Yes. It’s – I think those of you looking at the advisory hopeful note that today is the 13th anniversary when the Bush EPA planned to have a rollout of chemical regulation that we are talking about following the 9/11 disasters attacks, the EPA used this authority or prepare to use it until the Bush administration yanked their authority temporarily or yanked their proposal.
That authority still exists. EPA has acknowledged that as recently as well, very recently this year and last year. And this is something that the President should see the important legacy especially since any day, we could wake up to a disaster of horrific proportion. And the President was a leader on this from when he first came in to office in his book, “Audacity for Hope” as well as his campaign in 2008. And even the EPA and DHS have testified in Congress for security authority for this very same action to convert facilities that have safer alternatives available.
Peter Orris:
Rick, this is Peter Orris. Sorry to be delayed.
Rick Hind:
Peter, yes. Peter Orris is professor University of Illinois Hospital and long time expert on occupational health and safety. Peter, did – would you like to talk about the impact on a community to help impact at what we’re talking about such as a chlorine or other toxic gas release?
Peter Orris:
Well, as you know and we have talked about before because this is not a new idea within this proposal to that the ability to respond to a disaster, almost of our own making because we have some of these toxic chemicals readily accessible by others that may do damage to the community as a whole or may want to do damage to the community as a whole, as well as just purely through accident where safety measures are inoperative as we have seen with some regularity fortunately not in Chicago but in many other communities in the U.S. including some recent ones in Texas of quite a problem and really globally as well as we all know. Having said that, our ability to respond, speaking for the healthcare system for a moment if I might, is really rather paper thin.
We are much better coordinated than we have been between the various agencies of, that are needed for emergency response for health catastrophes. But our abilities within our structured institutions such as our major hospitals, even in cities such as Chicago, when we last surveyed the hospitals as to the capacity for a rapid surge in ICU patients or those needing acute care from a toxic exposure as opposed to a musculoskeletal accidents and others is really very limited and would – require quite a substantial federal involvement and seeking resources outside even of a major area such as Chicago with five major medical schools and healthcare institutions.
So obviously, here, prevention is the key. And reducing the chances of such a catastrophe is what is before us. And really, with the tools onboard at the EPA, I really would stress that we need to move forward on this quickly. Thank you.
Hello?
Rick Hind:
Yes. I’m sorry. I was on mute. If you have questions, please indicate. Otherwise, we want to invite Ron White, Amanda Frank and Carli Jensen to weigh in and Jerry Poje as well, founding member of Chemical Safety Board.
Operator:
And yes. You have a question from the line of David Reynolds.
Rick Hind:
Great. David, please.
David Reynolds:
Hi. Thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to check in and see if we had under as – I guess, a statement sent out about the alert related to IST this week that the government agencies put out. But I guess there was also a revision to the ammonium nitrate update. And I was wondering if anyone there was tracking that and saw significant differences between what EPA did a couple of years ago regarding the ammonium nitrate alert and what was put out now.
Rick Hind:
Well, one significant difference is that it – it’s from the – a more precise analogy was the 2000, the February 2000 alert, which reminded these facilities of their legal obligation to prevent a disaster and to design and operate their facilities more safely. This one seems to be simply a recapitulation of the industry, the Center for Chemical Process Safety manual without saying more about the economic advantages or something the EPA was asked to do a decade ago, which was to provide examples of converted facility. This is how the organic farming movement got going, is by showing people it worked in all regions and all crops. And that’s what EPA could have done expertly because they have hundreds of facilities they could have pointed to that have converted since 1999.
At least, those are a couple of things that we saw. And of course, that the great missing thing is an announcement of when new rulemaking would go into effect because the alert is entirely voluntary, and rulemaking is the only way really to ensure that things happen for sure wherever they’re feasible.
Jerry Poje:
Hi. This is …
Rick Hind:
Does anyone want to add to that?
Jerry Poje:
Yes. This is Dr. Jerry Poje, a two term board member of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. It’s quite clear that America is being treated as a third class citizen. Several years ago, the United States in Afghanistan worked with the Afghanistan government to ban the availability of unreformed ammonium nitrate to be used in agriculture in order to protect our soldiers and the citizens of Afghanistan. That hasn’t been done in the United States.
There’s an inherently safer way of approaching ammonium nitrate. You can reform it so that its explosive potential as was demonstrated in Oklahoma City many years ago as an act of terrorism could be prevented here in the United States. And the terrible tragedy in West, Texas would be permanently prevented by an inherently safer approach.
So we are asking the Obama administration through EPA, through OSHA, through Department of Homeland Security to step up and protect the American public in ways that are now being mandated to protect the public of Afghanistan. This is an outrage. And this sloth on the part of this administration is going to mark it as a point of shame. We need to accelerate.
The cost of this disaster to West, Texas from an ammonium nitrate explosion is conservatively, and very conservatively, estimated at $100 million. That community does not have $100 million. It doesn’t have a prayer of getting $100 million from the very conservative legislature in Texas. It doesn’t have a prayer in getting through this Congress of the United States for getting $100 million of relief for the disaster that was wreaked upon it by using unreformed ammonium nitrate.
This is the challenge to us right now. We’ve got a ticking clock that if it isn’t acted upon soon, we’re going to lose the opportunity for the presidential executive order to produce workable recommendations for regulations that could permanently retire these disastrous chemical impacts on our communities.
This will not be a mark of salutary impact of the Obama administration. It will be a mark of having failed to do what’s needed for the American public.
Rick Hind:
Well, thank you, Jerry. That’s – that’s very motivating. And it reminds me that in fact the comments of the Coalition, which you were so kind to consult on, point out that at one chapter, the very first chapter on the cost of these incidents and the savings of converting, something that Trevor Kletz, the founder of the might – and I say the father of IST, inherently safe technology, pointed out in the – in the manual EPA is quoting. And the public poll taken nationally taken in 2014 show that a majority of likely voters support what you’re saying, Jerry, and what needs to be done by the Obama administration. Carli or anyone else on the call that has either a question or comment?
Carli Jensen:
Yes. This is Carli. If there aren’t questions, I can jump in with a quick statement.
Rick Hind:
OK.
Carli Jensen:
OK. I would just like to echo all of the comments that have been made so far on the call today. And I think – I think there is one really positive part of this problem. And that its relative simplicity.
So we know that the current voluntary safety measures that apply to our chemical facilities are clearly not protecting us from this ongoing nationwide pattern of chemical disasters. And this was shown yet again by the massive chemical plant fire that was in Pennsylvania just yesterday. It polluted water. It threatened people. There was a huge fire. And I believer there was a die-off on the magnitude of about 10,000 fish just so far.
And you know you would think that a problem that is this scary and impacts this many people would have really complex solutions. Most of the nationwide problems that we face are complicated. And they’re nuanced. And they have long list of these debatable solutions.
But what we’re really dealing with here is a unique situation because there is a truly common sense solution to this problem and it’s requiring facilities to use IST, to use the safest cost effective chemicals and technology available. And you know EPA’ alert that they just issued showed that EPA knows that these inherently safer approaches are the best way to keep our community safe.
It’s common sense. It’s what they wrote in the alert. And what we need is for those principles to be codified in national rule.
And you know the Obama administration is going to face a lot of pressure from industry groups to keep this comment and solution out of the mandatory rule. So we need to just make sure that we’re speaking out for the communities who are facing these risks every single day. And we need the Obama administration to continue to lead on this issue and make sure that their proposed rule in September is a strong one and that it’s completed by the time President Obama leave office.
Rick Hind:
Thank you, Carli. And again, the – for questions from journalist, the prompt is star, one. If you do have a question, that’s star, one on your phone pad. Well, in the meantime, if Ron or Amanda from Center for Effective Government want — want to say a couple of words.
Ron White:
Yes. This is Ron White from Center for Effective Government. I’d just like to make a couple of points. First of all, with respect to the West, Texas disaster that really prompted the Executive Order is really only extremely by the grace of God and timing that the schools that were in close proximity to that facility were not full of students and as the report that the Center for Effective Government released last year, “Kids in Danger Zone,” shows one in three children in the United States go to schools that are in close proximity – close enough proximity to a chemical facility that they would be impacted by a major chemical accident.
You know it would be really, really tragic for such an accident to occur that actually does involve an occupied school before this country moves forward with the kinds of common sense approaches that you know we’ve been discussing in terms of utilizing and requiring that inherently safer technologies and processes be used by these facilities that in many cases are not only technologically feasible but cost effective as well. So that’s one point I wanted to make.
The other point I want to make is that at the Chemical Safety Board meeting – excuse me – yesterday we’ve heard from industry that a regulation isn’y necessary because the industry as a major industries involved are already doing this kind of assessment and shifting to safer approaches. The reality is that if you look at the accidents that have occurred over the last several years, many of the major companies are in fact involved with the trade association efforts that they claim are actually achieving these results.
And in fact, so whether it’s DuPont or some of the other large major chemical companies, these accidents are occurring at these facilities that these – that belong to these trade associations. So their voluntary programs are not working. And that kind of false argument really does – rings hollow in terms of, well, we don’t need regulation. We’re already doing this.
In fact, the industry is not doing it. It’s not just the, quote, unquote, “outlier” that they claim are the sources of these accidents. It is major corporations that are not maintaining their facilities properly, that are not looking at the alternatives that are available both in terms of the chemicals that they use and the processes that they use. And that is why a nationwide requirement in terms of a regulation is essential.
So I don’t know if there are questions. I’ll stop there.
Operator:
And your next question comes from the line of Jason Plautz.
Rick Hind:
Right.
Jason Plautz:
Just hi. Thanks for taking the question. I was wondering in addition to the administration action, is there anything going on on the hill that you are watching. Is there any legislation that you think could help move things in the right direction?
Rick Hind:
I – so, well, thankfully, no legislation is needed. This is all within the authority of EPA currently. And so the most help that we’ve got in this the Environment Public Works Committee, which held two, possibly three oversight hearings on this. Senator Boxer, Senator Markey and others were, weighed in heavily. In fact, the hearing included the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in a two committee oversight hearing and issued a very stinging report card on the progress of the Executive Order.
So you know that has been very helpful in motivating, we think, the EPA. But for some reason, the EPA does not seem to have taken the – up enthusiasm the – that you’d think they would with an Executive Order that more or less open invitation to do whatever they think they can. And we know the regulations were drafted thirteen years ago today. There was a plan to roll it out at the White House with legislators and members of the environmental and regulated community. So it’s really extraordinary that they’re sitting on this.
And as I think a number of people have said, austerity will not judge the administration kindly when a disaster happens. And everyone who studies the issue knows that’s just a matter of when not – whether it will happen. Are there any other …
Jerry Poje:
Jerry Poje. And I just want to emphasize what Rick just said. Part of this teleconference is really talking about the presidential Executive Order. This is the ball being cemented in the court of the executive agencies.
While we can seek to have Congress – the Senate, the Congress support the action, this is action that now lies within the control of the Obama administration. We’ve seen them act in the last year in opposition to Congress to move on climate change, to move on controlling airplane emissions, to water clarity support. We want them to act in this area because they have a ticking clock. And some of us on this call can tell you why that clock ticks loudly towards September.
If there is no action from this administration, then many of the people of the United States will think that the President’s actions in going to West, Texas after the tragedy of April 2013 has not brought to fruition what needs to be done, regulatory reform that’s solely within the control of the executive branch of the government. This is why it’s not an act of Congress that’s needed. It’s really an act of willfulness by the President and those who he’s appointed to lead federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.
Michele Roberts:
If I could …
Rick Hind:
And thank you, Jerry. And I think it’s been you know so well stated by so many of us that – you know that this is common sense that we could – Lisa Jackson said “it’s a no-brainer.” But you know the mystery is why not move ahead?
And you know the obvious cynical answer is the chemical industry lobbying Republicans are threatening them. But really, when you think about it, if they were to roll this out right way – from the president and vice president are very articulate on this issue and know that in fact the Republicans will look ridiculous opposing the prevention of chemical disasters. It’s a very simple and easy to understand issue.
And all of the regulations can address the areas of concern such as will this shift risk somewhere else. Well, that could happen tomorrow. They’re free to shift risk tomorrow or yesterday or today.
Will this in some way bankrupt a company? No. The regulations would necessarily take into account the cost to the industry and then the impact. And so it’d really be those that are feasible, which are the words of the President to switch to safer alternative where feasible under the Clean Air Act legislation and previous regulations. So it’s …
Michele Roberts:
With that …
Rick Hind:
It is completely not only in their purview but it’s actually – will be a political advantage to them and to their other initiatives upon the environment and public safety because it will – any opposition will discredit that opposition in very short matter in the media and in the public eye.
Michele Roberts:
Rick, if I could just add very quickly. You know early – back earlier in the year, the Obama administration committed to upholding that of environmental justice. You know folk – the environmental justice movement fought so hard for the environmental justice Executive Order. Now, here, 20 plus years later, the administration is acknowledging the fact that they too want to go out as one – as a champion for environmental justice.
It is important for us to know that 3.8 million people that we know of living fenceline to these facilities are communities of color. These are the faces of environmental justice. If indeed the President would like to leave a legacy on his full commitment to that of environmental justice, then he will honor the principles that those who have died and still remain living are pushing for. And that is that we change our way of doing business from being a risk based society to that of being a precautionary and preventive based society, one that lives in peace and harmony with the land, one that allows for communities to live in a healthy way, one as Dr. King stood for wanting to have love for communities for all, not having schools to have to shelter in place, not having our senior facilities be near an explosive facility.
We don’t need these. And we know that we can do better. There was that we as the Environmental Justice Health Alliance appealed to this administration to honor their commitment to environmental justice. Thank you for that.
Rick Hind:
Thank you, Michele. You know this is I think one of the most clear cut benefits on environmental justice that the administration could show good faith on and actually do good, something you could measure and point to eliminated risk. Clorox eliminated all their facilities risk, and yet 466 facilities pose equal or greater risk in those facilities.
I want to just extend one last offer for questions. It’s star, one on your keypad, star, one. Otherwise, if there are none, we want to thank everyone for joining the call and also for questions and comments that we’ve had. And feel free to follow up with any of the participants if you have further questions and also if you are covering the webinar update by the administration next Friday, the 19th. We expect that questions we heard today and others should be answered by then either at that webinar or when you talk to them later this week.
I don’t hear any other questions.
Operator:
And no, there are no further audio questions.
Rick Hind:
OK. Thank you. So with that, again, thanks, everyone. And again, we’ll – we’ll – that we’ll be talking in the near future.
Operator:
And this concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.
Rick Hind:
Thank you.
END